STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA...

MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

[vc_row][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_tour interval=”0″][vc_tab title=”English” tab_id=”db2e8494-50db-cl”]

STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA
MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

African agriculture is in need of support and investment. Many initiatives are flowing from the North, including the G8’s “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa” and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). These initiatives are framed in terms of the African Union’s Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP). This gives them a cover of legitimacy.

But what is driving these investments, and who is set to benefit from them?

The current wave of investment emerges on the back of the gathering global crisis with financial, economic, food, energy and ecological dimensions. Africa is seen as underperforming and in control of valuable resources that capital seeks for profitable purposes. The World Bank and others tell us Africa has an abundance of available fertile land, and that Africa’s production structure is inefficient, based as it is on many small farms producing mainly for themselves and their neighbourhoodsi.

Africa is seen as a possible new frontier to make profits, with an eye on land, food and biofuels in particular. The recent investment wave must be understood in the context of consolidation of a global food regimeii dominated by large corporations in input supply (seed and agrochemicals) especially, but also increasingly in processing, storage, trading and distribution.
G8 and AGRA: a new wave of colonialism

Opening markets and creating space for multinationals to secure profits lie at the heart of the G8 and AGRA interventions. Both initiatives are built on the basis of public-private partnerships (PPPs) with the large multinational seed, fertiliser and agrochemical companies setting the agenda, and states and institutions (like the G8, World Bank and others) and philanthropic institutions (like AGRA and others) establishing the institutional and infrastructural mechanisms to realise this agenda.

Multinational corporations like Yara, Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill and many others want secure markets for their products in Africa. In the first place, security means protection of their private ownership of knowledge in the form of intellectual property (IP) protection. Across Africa, so-called ‘harmonisation’ of laws and policies are underway to align African laws and systems with the interests of these multinationals.

Harmonisation of trade laws means opening borders across the continent to free trade. But this is a skewed free trade, one that favours the ‘formal sector’ of goods and services that have gone through approval and registration processes. Farmers and other producers of goods and services who cannot afford to enter the official approval system are marginalised and trading of their products is rendered illegal.

Private ownership of knowledge and material resources (for example, seed and genetic materials) means the flow of royalties out of Africa into the hands of multinational corporations. In some countries where laws protecting the interests of corporations are well established ? for example in South Africa ? multinationals have entirely occupied domestic seed and agrochemical sectors with profits flowing out of the country. The same is happening for agricultural services, trade, manufacturing and even selling of food.

The private companies are not acting on their own. They are using investment-friendly government policies and plans to advance their agenda.
CAADP and regional investment policies: facilitating ‘orderly’ processes of colonialism

There are many well-meaning organisations and individuals who view CAADP as an African-based investment plan. But Africa is not isolated from the world. CAADP emerged at the height of neo-liberalism globally in the early 2000s. African governments were mired in the consequences of decades of structural adjustment that saw the net outflow of financial and other resources from Africa to the rest of the world. The New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was an initiative by selected African governments to integrate Africa into global flows of capital. The expectation was that profit-generating investment, and creating the conditions for protection of this investment, were Africa’s chance to catch up with the rest.

African governments, desperate for some financial relief, are willing to make whatever changes are necessary to bring capital into their countries. The multinationals are setting the terms: harmonisation, free trade and protection of private IP or no investment. It is therefore of little use calling for CAADP to be placed at the centre of investment plans. CAADP itself is a compromised instrument, calling for the very policies and programmes favoured by the multinationals.
Food security and corporate-driven investment in Africa

Harmonisation, free trade and the creation of institutions and infrastructure to facilitate multinational penetration into Africa are presented as the answer to food insecurity on the continent. Multinational corporations, African states, states outside Africa, philanthropic institutions, multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and even some non-government organisations are all part of this agenda. Surely so many organisations and people cannot be wrong?

The logic is that of the Green Revolution: introduce yield- and sales-enhancing technologies and systems, provide credit for producers to access these technologies, and anticipate increasing returns from sales to cover the increasing cost of inputs. Expand access to markets globally and regionally to absorb increased production.

This model can benefit some, as Green Revolutions in Asia and to a lesser extent in Latin America have shown. However, it also has negative social and ecological side effects. Green Revolution technologies benefit relatively few farmers, often at the expense of the majority. These technologies produce concentration of land ownership, increasing economies of scale (production has to be at a large scale to get into and stay in markets), and a declining number of food producing households in a context of limited other livelihood options.

Ecological concerns about Green Revolution technologies are rising to the top of the global agenda, especially loss of biodiversity when commercial hybrids and GM seed dominate (especially maize as a staple crop in Africa, and the introduction of soya as the basis of biofuels and commercial intercropping approaches), soil degradation and water pollution caused by excessive use of manufactured chemicals in synthetic fertilisers, and water shortages caused by wasteful water use in irrigation.

The Green Revolution produces uneven benefits, favouring farmers with financial resources of their own, with access to more land, and with some formal education. The majority of resource poor farmers are excluded from public support for agriculture, with infrastructure and institutional frameworks designed for the minority to benefit.

Currently African food security rests fundamentally on small-scale and localised production. The majority of the African population continue to rely on agriculture as an important, if not the main, source of income and livelihoods. In most sub-Saharan African countries, agriculture is the primary economic activity for between 50% and 90% of the populationiii. Even though there is growing urbanisation, the majority will continue to rely on agriculture for their livelihoods for decades to come. The rural population continues to grow in absolute terms even while the urban population grows as a proportion of the total population.

We know that all of these people will not benefit from these new investments. Seen as more inefficient than those producers who are in a position to adopt the new technologies, many will be forced out of agriculture to become passive consumers. Instead of building the broad base of producers, G8 and AGRA investments, supported by African government policies and resources, will narrow the base of producers.

The practical results of the recent surge in investment in African agriculture expose the empty rhetoric of African food security. Blatant land grabs are well known across the continent. Mega projects such as the ProSavanna project in northern Mozambique are displacing farmers from their lands and imposing large-scale production structures for export. Favourable investment terms (for example tax free zones and laws on repatriation of profits) undermine even the questionable benefits increased foreign exchange brings. Meanwhile actual farmers are separated from the land and the only realistic option for a livelihood. African governments and their investment ‘partners’ enable and implement these projects.
Alternatives

First and foremost, differentiated strategies are required, so that local and informal markets, proven low-input and ecologically sustainable agricultural techniques including intercropping, on-farm compost production, mixed farming systems (livestock, crops and trees), on-farm biofuel production and use, and intermediate processing and storage technologies are recognised and vigorously supported. The emphasis here is on individual and household food security first, with trade arising from surpluses beyond this. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) provides detailed and scientifically sound proposals in this regard.

Open access technologies are an essential principle, especially seed, where all recent technological advances are based on 10,000 years of collective experimentation and sharing. No-one and no corporations should be allowed to privatise the results of ongoing research. Companies can sell their new varieties, but once sold, they re-enter the common pool that anyone should be able to use and improve on at will.

Green Revolution technological development leads to an ever-increasing gap between conception and execution, that is between the knowledge that goes into producing a new seed variety and those who use the seed. An alternative, based on open source technologies, is a far closer working relationship between decentralised technicians and producers to define the research and development agenda (what traits are farmers looking for in specific locations, what crops are priorities for further development etc). Plant breeders are still able to make profits by selling new varieties to those who want to buy fresh seed, especially commercial farmers. But if farmers choose to reuse and adapt seed once they have bought it, that must be their right.
We therefore call on the G8, AGRA, CAADP and other similar institutions to:

Acknowledge variation amongst farmers and commit to providing appropriate, dedicated support to all food producers rather than only a thin commercial layer;
Abandon efforts to assert private ownership of germplasm, agricultural techniques and knowledge and to accept that these all emerge from a common pool
Invest in and facilitate open source technological development together with farmers;
Invest in ecological agriculture following the IAASTD proposals;
Development finance to be based on grants and public programmes not for profit;
Ensure smallholder women and men farmers are at the centre of any strategy for increasing investment in this sector. There should be recognition of the ongoing broad consultation of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on Responsible Agricultural Investments (RAI). This process was the result of a decision of the CFS in 2011 following their rejection of the World Bank blueprint for Principles on Responsible Agricultural Investment in 2010.

Please sign the statement:
Networks:

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), comprising of the following members: African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth- Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers? Forum (ESAFF), La Via Campesina Africa, FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS) and Plate forme Sous R?gionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
Tanzania Biodiversity Alliance comprising of: ACRA, ActionAid International Tanzania; African Biodiversity Network; African Centre for Biodiversity (South Africa) Bioland; BioRe; BioSustain; Community Water & Environmental Association; (COWEA); CVM/APA (Comunit? Volontari per il Mondo / AIDS partnership with Africa); Envirocare; ESAFF; MVIWATA;PELUM; Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania; Swissaid; ANCERT; Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement and Tushiriki.
Alliance for Agro-Ecology and Biodiversity, Zambia
People’s Dialogue
Rural Women’s Assembly

Organisations:

African Centre for Biosafety
Biowatch South Africa
Surplus People Project
JINUKUN, Benin
FoodMattersZimbabwe
Women and Resources, East and Southern Africa
Kasisi Agricultural Training Cetnre, Zambia
Trust for Community Training and Outreach, South Africa
Inades Formation

i World Bank 2009 “Awakening Africa’s sleeping giant: Prospects for commercial agriculture in Africa’s Guinea Savannah zone and beyond”, World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Unit, Africa Regional Office

ii McMichael, P. 2009 “A food regime genealogy”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36: 1, pp.139-169

iii World Bank, “World Databank”, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx[/vc_tab] [vc_tab title=”Fran?ais” tab_id=”0c8fdede-9134-cl”]

D?claration de la soci?t? civile en Afrique
? qui profite la modernisation de l?agriculture africaine?

L?agriculture africaine a besoin de soutien et d?investissement. De nombreuses initiatives venant du Nord affluent, notamment la ?Nouvelle Alliance pour la s?curit? alimentaire et la nutrition en Afrique? lanc?e par le G8 et l?Alliance pour une r?volution verte en Afrique (AGRA).

Ces initiatives s?inscrivent dans le cadre du Programme D?taill? de D?veloppement de l?Agriculture Africaine (PDDAA), ce qui leur conf?re une apparence de l?gitimit?.

Mais qu?y a t-il derri?re ces investissements et qui est cens? en b?n?ficier ?

La vague d?investissement actuelle ?merge dans le contexte d?une crise mondiale toujours plus mena?ante, qui touche tous les domaines : finance, ?conomie, alimentation, ?nergie et ?cologie. L?Afrique est consid?r?e comme insuffisamment performante mais en possession de ressources de grande valeur que le capital recherche pour en tirer profit. La Banque mondiale et autres nous disent que l?Afrique dispose d?une abondance de terres fertiles et que la structure m?me de la production africaine est inefficace, parce qu?elle est fond?e sur un grand nombre de petites fermes qui produisent principalement pour la famille et pour les voisinsi.

L?Afrique est vue comme une nouvelle fronti?re possible pour faire du profit ; les terres, l?alimentation et les biocarburants sont particuli?rement vis?s. La r?cente vague d?investissement doit ?tre comprise dans un contexte de consolidation de l?organisation du syst?me alimentaire mondialii sous la domination des grandes entreprises ; ceci est particuli?rement vrai dans le secteur des intrants (semences et produits agrochimiques), mais aussi de plus en plus dans la transformation, le stockage, le commerce et la distribution.
Le G8 et AGRA : une nouvelle vague de colonialisme

L?ouverture de march?s et d?espace pour garantir des b?n?fices aux multinationales est un objectif essentiel des interventions du G8 et d?AGRA. Tous deux s?appuient sur des partenariats public- priv? : les grandes entreprises multinationales de semences, d?engrais et de produits agrochimiques d?cident des programmes, et les ?tats (comme le G8, la Banque mondiale et autres) et les institutions pr?tendument philanthropiques (comme AGRA, la Fondation Rockefeller, la Fondation Melinda et Bill Gates, etc.) mettent en place les m?canismes institutionnels et les infrastructures permettant de r?aliser ces programmes.

Les multinationales comme Yara, Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill et tant d?autres, veulent des march?s s?rs pour leurs produits en Afrique. La s?curit? signifie d?abord de prot?ger les savoirs qui leur appartiennent, en imposant une protection de la propri?t? intellectuelle. Partout en Afrique, une soi- disant ?harmonisation? des lois et des politiques est en cours, pour aligner les lois et les syst?mes propres ? l?Afrique sur les int?r?ts des multinationales.

L?harmonisation des lois sur le commerce implique d?ouvrir les fronti?res sur tout le continent afin de lib?rer le commerce. Mais ce commerce est fauss? : il favorise le secteur ?formel? des marchandises et des services qui ont subi les proc?dures de certification et d?enregistrement. Les petits agriculteurs et autres producteurs de marchandises et de services qui ne peuvent se permettre d?entrer dans le syst?me officiel de certification se trouvent marginalis?s et le commerce de leurs produits devient ill?gal.

La propri?t? priv?e des savoirs et des ressources mat?rielles (par exemple les semences et le mat?riel g?n?tique) signifie que les droits de propri?t? (royalties) ?chappent ? l?Afrique et passent aux mains des multinationales. Dans certains pays o? les lois prot?geant les int?r?ts des grandes entreprises sont bien ?tablies, comme en Afrique du Sud, les multinationales ont r?ussi ? occuper enti?rement le secteur national des semences et celui des produits agrochimiques, et le pays voit s??chapper les b?n?fices. Le m?me processus se r?p?te dans le domaine des services agricoles, le commerce, la production et m?me la vente des denr?es alimentaires.

Les entreprises priv?es n?agissent pas seules. Pour atteindre leurs objectifs, elles exploitent en effet des politiques et des programmes gouvernementaux favorables aux investisseurs.

Le PDDAA et les politiques r?gionales d?investissement encouragent la mise en ?uvre de processus colonialistes bien ?ordonn?s?

Nombreuses sont les organisations et les personnes bien-intentionn?es qui consid?rent le PDDAA comme un programme d?investissement fondamentalement africain. Mais l?Afrique n?est pas isol?e du reste du monde. Le PDDAA est apparu au moment o? le n?olib?ralisme ?tait mondialement ? son apog?e, au d?but des ann?es 2000. Les gouvernements africains ?taient emp?tr?s dans les cons?quences de plusieurs d?cennies d?ajustement structurel qui ont permis la fuite des ressources africaines, financi?res et autres, vers le reste du monde. Le Nouveau partenariat ?conomique pour le d?veloppement de l?Afrique (NEPAD) ?tait l?initiative d?un groupe de gouvernements africains pour int?grer l?Afrique dans les flux internationaux de capitaux. L?id?e ?tait que cet investissement, ? vis?es lucratives, et la mise en ?uvre de conditions le prot?geant repr?sentaient pour l?Afrique sa chance de rattraper le reste du monde.

Dans leur besoin d?sesp?r? d?aide financi?re, les gouvernements africains sont pr?ts ? accepter tous les changements n?cessaires pour attirer les capitaux dans leur pays. Les multinationales dictent les termes : c?est l?harmonisation, le libre-?change et la protection de la propri?t? priv?e, sinon pas question d?investissement. Cela n?a donc pas grand sens de r?clamer que le PDDAA soit mis au centre des programmes d?investissement. Le PDDAA lui-m?me est un instrument de compromis, qui demande pr?cis?ment les politiques et les programmes pr?f?r?s des multinationales.
La s?curit? alimentaire et la place des grandes entreprises dans l?investissement en Afrique

L?harmonisation, le libre-?change et la cr?ation d?institutions et d?infrastructures destin?es ? faciliter la p?n?tration des multinationales en Afrique sont pr?sent?es comme une fa?on de r?pondre ? l?ins?curit? alimentaire sur le continent. Les multinationales, les ?tats africains, les ?tats non africains, les institutions pr?tendument philanthropiques, les institutions multilat?rales comme la Banque mondiale et m?me certaines organisations non-gouvernementales, prennent tous part ? ce programme. Tant d?organisations et d?individus peuvent-ils se tromper ?

La logique est la m?me que celle de la R?volution verte : il s?agit d?introduire des technologies et des syst?mes permettant d?augmenter les rendements et les ventes, d?accorder des cr?dits aux producteurs pour qu?ils puissent avoir acc?s ? ces technologies et de compter sur l?augmentation des b?n?fices issus des ventes pour couvrir celle du prix des intrants. Il faut aussi ?largir l?acc?s aux march?s internationaux et r?gionaux pour absorber l?accroissement de la production.

Ce mod?le peut effectivement profiter ? quelques-uns, comme les r?volutions vertes en Asie et, dans une moindre mesure en Am?rique latine, ont pu le montrer. Toutefois il a aussi des cons?quences n?gatives sur le plan social et ?cologique. Les technologies de la r?volution verte profitent ? relativement peu d?agriculteurs et les b?n?fices se font souvent aux d?pens de la majorit?. Ces technologies provoquent une concentration de la propri?t?, augmentent les ?conomies d??chelle (la production doit se faire ? grande ?chelle pour p?n?trer dans les march?s et s?y maintenir) et r?duisent le nombre de foyers produisant de la nourriture dans un contexte o? les autres moyens de subsistance sont limit?s.

Les inqui?tudes ?cologiques soulev?es par les technologies de la R?volution verte sont en train de devenir une priorit? mondiale : perte de biodiversit? dans des syst?mes domin?s par les hybrides commerciaux et les semences GM ( tout particuli?rement le ma?s comme culture de base en Afrique, l?introduction du soja pour la production des biocarburants et les techniques de cultures associ?es utilis?es dans l?agriculture commerciale) d?gradation des sols et pollution des eaux provoqu?es par l?usage excessif des produits de synth?se dans les engrais chimiques, manques d?eau caus?s par le gaspillage de l?eau d?irrigation.

La R?volution verte r?partit mal les b?n?fices : elle favorise les agriculteurs qui disposent de ressources financi?res propres, ont acc?s ? davantage de terres et ont eu droit ? une ?ducation formelle. La majorit? des petits producteurs pauvres en ressources sont exclus des subventions publiques ? l?agriculture ; les infrastructures et les cadres institutionnels sont con?us pour ne profiter qu?? une minorit?.

Aujourd?hui, la s?curit? alimentaire en Afrique s?appuie essentiellement sur la production familiale et locale. La majorit? de la population africaine continue ? d?pendre de l?agriculture qui constitue une source importante, pour ne pas dire la premi?re, de revenus et d?emploi. Dans la plupart des pays d?Afrique subsaharienne, l?agriculture reste la principale activit? ?conomique pour 50 ? 90 pour cent de la populationiii. Malgr? l?augmentation de l?urbanisation, la majorit? continuera ? d?pendre de l?agriculture pour sa survie pendant encore des dizaines d?ann?es. La population rurale poursuit sa croissance en termes absolus, alors m?me que la population urbaine s?accro?t en pourcentage de la population totale.

Nous savons que tous ces gens ne pourront pas tirer de b?n?fices de ces nouveaux investissements. Consid?r?s comme moins efficaces que les producteurs qui sont en mesure d?adopter les nouvelles technologies, beaucoup d?entre eux se verront oblig?s d?abandonner l?agriculture pour devenir des consommateurs passifs. Au lieu de construire une large base de producteurs, les investissements du G8, soutenus par la politique et les ressources des gouvernements africains, vont au contraire r?duire cette base.

Les r?sultats pratiques de la r?cente envol?e des investissements dans l?agriculture africaine d?voilent le vide de la rh?torique de la s?curit? alimentaire africaine. Les cas d?accaparement des terres se multiplient de fa?on manifeste sur tout le continent. D??normes projets comme le projet ProSavana au nord du Mozambique chassent les petits exploitants de leurs terres et imposent des structures de production ? grande ?chelle destin?es ? l?exportation. Des conditions favorisant les investisseurs (notamment les zones d?tax?e franches et les lois concernant le rapatriement des b?n?fices) minent jusqu?aux b?n?fices discutables qu?est cens?e amener l?augmentation des ?changes avec l??tranger. Dans le m?me temps, les petits exploitants sont priv?s de leurs terres, qui sont pour eux la seule option r?aliste de survie. Ce sont les gouvernements africains et leurs ?partenaires? en investissement qui rendent possible la r?alisation de tels projets.
Alternatives

En tout premier lieu, il faut absolument adopter des strat?gies diff?renci?es pour que soient reconnus et soutenus avec conviction les march?s locaux et informels, les techniques agricoles ?prouv?es qui utilisent peu d?intrants mais sont ?cologiquement durables, notamment l?association des cultures, la production de compost ? la ferme, les syst?mes d?agriculture mixte (?levage, production v?g?tale et arboriculture) la production et l?utilisation de biocarburants ? la ferme et les technologies de transformation et de stockage interm?diaires. L?accent est alors mis sur la s?curit? alimentaire individuelle et familiale d?abord, le commerce provenant des surplus existants. L??valuation internationale des sciences et des technologies agricoles pour le d?veloppement (IAASTD) avance ? cet ?gard des propositions d?taill?es et justifi?es d?un point de vue scientifique.

Les technologies libres (open source) constituent un principe essentiel. C?est le cas en particulier dans le domaine des semences, o? toutes les avanc?es technologiques r?centes reposent sur 10 000 ans d?exp?rimentation et de partage collectifs. Personne, ni individu ni grande entreprise, ne devrait avoir le droit de privatiser les r?sultats de la recherche actuelle. Les soci?t?s peuvent vendre leurs nouvelles vari?t?s mais une fois vendues, elles doivent ?tre remises au fonds g?n?tique commun que toute personne doit pouvoir utiliser et am?liorer ? sa guise.

Le d?veloppement technologique de la R?volution verte creuse un foss? toujours plus profond entre la conception et l?ex?cution, c?est-?-dire entre le savoir qui permet de produire une nouvelle vari?t? de semence et ceux qui vont utiliser cette semence. L?une des alternatives fond?es sur les technologies open source serait d??tablir une relation de travail beaucoup plus ?troite entre des techniciens d?centralis?s et les producteurs, pour d?finir les priorit?s de la recherche et du d?veloppement (quels caract?ristiques recherchent les agriculteurs pour tel ou tel endroit, quelles cultures il faut continuer ? d?velopper en priorit?, etc.). Les phytog?n?ticiens peuvent toujours faire des b?n?fices en vendant les nouvelles vari?t?s ? ceux qui veulent renouveler leurs semences, notamment les agriculteurs commerciaux. Mais si les agriculteurs choisissent de r?-utiliser et d?adapter les semences une fois qu?ils les ont achet?es, ils doivent en avoir le droit.
Pour ces raisons nous exhortons le G8, AGRA, le PDDAA et toutes les institutions similaires ?:

reconna?tre les diff?rences entre les agriculteurs et s?engager ? fournir un accompagnement appropri? et r?solu ? tous les producteurs de vivriers, au lieu de r?server ce soutien ? une petite couche de producteurs commerciaux ;
abandonner les efforts pour faire valoir le caract?re priv? de la propri?t? du germoplasme, des techniques et des savoirs agricoles et accepter le fait que tous ?manent d?un fonds commun investir et favoriser le d?veloppement des technologies open source en coop?ration avec les agriculteurs;
investir dans l?agriculture ?cologique selon les propositions de l?IAASTD ;
fonder le financement du d?veloppement sur des subventions et des programmes publics et non pas sur la recherche du profit;
faire en sorte que les petits exploitants, femmes et hommes, soient au centre de toute strat?gie d?investissement dans ce secteur. L?importance de la large consultation organis?e actuellement par le Comit? de la s?curit? alimentaire mondiale (CSA) sur les Iinvestissements agricoles responsables (RAI) doit ?tre reconnue. Cette proc?dure est le r?sultat de la d?cision prise en 2011 par le CSA de rejeter le projet de 2010 dit d?investissement responsable en agriculture ?manant de la Banque mondiale.

Liste des signataires de la d?claration:
Networks

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), comprising of the following members: African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth-Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers? Forum (ESAFF), La Via Campesina Africa, FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers’and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS) and Plate forme Sous R?gionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
Tanzania Biodiversity Alliance comprising of: ACRA, ActionAid International Tanzania; African Biodiversity Network; African Centre for Biodiversity (South Africa) Bioland; BioRe; BioSustain; Community Water & Environmental Association; (COWEA); CVM/APA (Comunit? Volontari per il Mondo / AIDS partnership with Africa); Envirocare; ESAFF; MVIWATA;PELUM; Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania; Swissaid; ANCERT; Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement and Tushiriki.
Alliance for Agro-Ecology and Biodiversity, Zambia Conservation, Zambia
People?s Dialogue
Rural Women?s Assembly

Organisations

African Cenre for Biosafety, South Africa
Biowatch, South Africa
JINUKUN (B?nin)
Surplus People Project, South Africa
Women and Resources, Eastern and Southern Africa
FoodMattersZimbabwe
Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre, Zambia
Trust for Community Outreach and Training, South Africa
Inades Formation

i World Bank 2009 ?Awakening Africa?s sleeping giant: Prospects for commercial agriculture in Africa?s Guinea Savannah zone and beyond?, [R?veiller le g?ant africain endormi : perspectives pour une agriculture commerciale dans la r?gion de la savane guin?enne et au-del? ]. Rapport en anglais du D?partement de l?agriculture et du d?veloppement rural de la Banque mondiale, Bureau r?gional d?Afrique.

ii McMichael, P. 2009 ?A food regime genealogy?, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36: 1, pp.139-169

iii World Bank, ?World Databank?, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx

http://www.banquemondiale.org/fr/news/press-release/2013/05/09/regional-integration-key-to-africa-s-future-competitiveness

http://www.afdb.org/fr/

http://www.banquemondiale.org/fr/news/feature/2013/05/09/public-private-collaboration-can-make-africa-globally-competitive
African Centre for Biosafety
Activist Corner
[/vc_tab] [vc_tab title=”Portugues” tab_id=”e3da2598-20b6-cl”]

DECLARA??O DA SOCIEDADE CIVIL NA ?FRICA
MODERNIZANDO A AGRICULTURA AFRICANA: QUEM BENEFICIA?

A agricultura africana necessita de apoio e investimento. H? muitas iniciativas a emergir do Norte, incluindo a ?Nova Alian?a para Seguran?a Alimentar e Nutri??o em ?frica? dos G8 e a Alian?a para uma Revolu??o Verde em ?frica (AGRA). Estas iniciativas est?o enquadradas em termos do Programa Compreensivo para o Desenvolvimento da Agricultura em ?frica (CAADP) da Uni?o Africana. Isto d?-lhes uma cobertura de legitimidade.

Mas o que est? a impulsionar estes investimentos e quem est? colocado para beneficiar deles?

A onda atual de investimentos surge como fruto do ac?mulo da crise global com dimens?es financeiras, econ?micas, alimentares, de energia e ecol?gicas. A ?frica ? vista como tendo um fraco desempenho e em controlo de recursos valiosos que o capital procura com fins lucrativos. O Banco Mundial e outros dizem-nos que a ?frica tem terra f?rtil em abundancia e que a estrutura produtiva africana ? ineficiente, pois ? baseada em muitos pequenos terrenos produzindo principalmente para eles pr?prios e as suas vizinhan?asi.

A ?frica ? vista como uma poss?vel nova fronteira para realizar lucros, com um olho na terra, em alimentos e, particularmente, em biocombust?veis. A onda recente de investimentos deve ser entendida no contexto da consolida??o de um regime global alimentar corporativoii dominado por grandes corpora??es, especialmente no fornecimento de insumos (sementes e agroqu?micos), mas tamb?m cada vez mais no processamento, armazenagem, com?rcio e distribui??o.
Os G8 e a AGRA: uma nova onda de colonialismo

Ao centro das interven??es dos G8 e da Agra ? a abertura de mercados e criar espa?o para as multinacionais assegurarem lucros. Ambas as iniciativas s?o constru?das na base de parcerias p?blicas-particulares (PPPs) com as grandes companhias multinacionais de sementes, fertilizantes e agroqu?micos estabelecendo a agenda, e estados e institui??es (tais como os G8, o Banco Mundial e outros) e institui??es filantr?picas (tais como a Agra e outras) estabelecendo os mecanismos institucionais e infraestruturais para a realiza??o dessa agenda.

Corpora??es multinacionais tais como a Yara, Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill e muitas outras querem assegurar mercados para os seus produtos em ?frica. Em primeiro lugar, seguran?a significa prote??o da sua propriedade privada do conhecimento na forma da protec??o da propriedade intelectual (PI). Atrav?s da ?frica, est? em curso o que se denomina ?harmoniza??o? de leis e politicas para alinhar as leis e sistemas africanos com os interesses destas multinacionais.

A harmoniza??o de leis de com?rcio significa a abertura de fronteiras atrav?s do continente para o com?rcio livre. Mas este ? um com?rcio livre distorcido, um que favorece o ?setor formal? de mercadorias e servi?os que tenham ido atrav?s de processos de aprova??o e registo. Agricultores/as e outros/as produtores/as de bens e servi?os que n?o podem pagar para entrar no sistema de aprova??o oficial s?o marginalizados/as e o com?rcio dos seus produtos ? rendido ilegal.

A propriedade privada do conhecimento e de recursos materiais (sementes e materiais gen?ticos, por exemplo) significa o fluxo de ?royalties? para fora de ?frica e para as m?os das corpora??es multinacionais. Nalguns pa?ses onde as leis que protegem os interesses das corpora??es est?o bem estabelecidas ? por exemplo, na ?frica do Sul ? as multinacionais ocuparam inteiramente os sectores dom?sticos de sementes e agroqu?micos com os lucros escoando para fora do pa?s. O mesmo est? a acontecer com os servi?os agr?colas, de com?rcio, manufatura e mesmo de venda de alimentos.

As companhias privadas n?o est?o a atuar s?s. Est?o a usar pol?ticas e planos do governo que s?o favor?veis aos investidores para avan?arem as suas agendas.
CAADP e pol?ticas de investimento regionais: facilitando processos de colonialismo ?bem ordenado?

H? muitas organiza??es e indiv?duos bem-intencionados que v?em CAADP como um plano de investimento baseado em ?frica. Mas a ?frica n?o est? isolada do mundo. O CAADP emerge no pico global do neoliberalismo no in?cio dos anos 2000. Os governos africanos estavam capturados nas consequ?ncias de d?cadas de ajustes estruturais que levaram ? sa?da liquida de recursos financeiros e outros recursos, da ?frica para o resto do mundo. A Nova Parceria para o Desenvolvimento de ?frica (NEPAD) foi uma iniciativa por governos selecionados de ?frica para integrar a ?frica em fluxos globais de capitais. A expetativa era que investimentos geradores de lucros, e a cria??o de condi??es para prote??o destes investimentos, eram a oportunidade de ?frica se colocar ao lado do resto.

Os governos africanos, desesperados por algum al?vio financeiro, est?o dispostos a fazer quaisquer mudan?as necess?rias para trazer capital para os seus pa?ses. As multinacionais est?o a estabelecer os termos: harmoniza??o, com?rcio livre, e prote??o de PI ou n?o h? investimentos. ? pouco ?til, portanto, fazer uma chamada para CAADP ser colocado ao centro dos planos de investimento. O CAADP ?, em si pr?prio, um instrumento comprometido, que chama pelas pol?ticas e programas favorecidos pelas multinacionais.
Seguran?a alimentar e investimentos impulsionados pelas multinacionais em ?frica

A harmoniza??o, o com?rcio livre e a cria??o de institui??es e infraestrutura para facilitar a penetra??o das multinacionais na ?frica s?o apresentadas como a resposta ? seguran?a alimentar no continente. As corpora??es multinacionais, os estados africanos, estados fora da ?frica, institui??es filantr?picas, institui??es multilaterais tais como o Banco Mundial e mesmo algumas organiza??es n?o-governamentais, s?o todos parte desta agenda. Certamente que tantas organiza??es e pessoas n?o podem estar erradas?

A l?gica ? a da Revolu??o Verde: introduzir tecnologias e sistemas para aumentar a produ??o e vendas, fornecer cr?dito a produtores/as para terem acesso a estas tecnologias, e antecipar rendimentos crescentes a partir das vendas para cobrir o aumento no custo dos insumos. Expandir acesso a mercados globalmente e regionalmente para absorver o aumento na produ??o.

Este modelo pode beneficiar alguns e algumas, tal como as Revolu??es Verdes o demonstraram na ?sia e, em menor medida, na Am?rica Latina. Contudo, tamb?m tem efeitos secund?rios sociais e ecol?gicos negativos. Tecnologias da Revolu??o Verde beneficiam relativamente poucos/as agricultores/as, muitas vezes ? custa da maioria. Estas tecnologias resultam na concentra??o da propriedade da terra, num aumento das economias de escala (a produ??o tem de ser numa grande escala para entrar e permanecer em mercados) e num n?mero decrescente de fam?lias produtoras de alimentos num contexto de op??es limitadas para outros modos de subsist?ncia.

Preocupa??es ecol?gicas acerca das tecnologias da Revolu??o Verde est?o a assumir prioridade na agenda global, especialmente a perda de biodiversidade quando dominam os h?bridos comerciais e sementes GM (especialmente no milho como um cultivo alimentar b?sico em ?frica, e a introdu??o de soja como a base para biocombust?veis e abordagens de consorcia??o comerciais), degrada??o dos solos e polui??o da ?gua causadas pelo uso excessivo de qu?micos manufacturados nos fertilizantes sint?ticos, e escassez de ?gua causada pelo desperd?cio de ?gua em irriga??o.

A Revolu??o Verde produz benef?cios assim?tricos, favorecendo agricultores/as com recursos financeiros pr?prios, com acesso a mais terra e com alguma educa??o formal. A maioria de agricultores/as com poucos recursos ? exclu?da do apoio p?blico ? agricultura, com quadros de infraestrutura e institucionais desenhados para o benef?cio da minoria. Atualmente a seguran?a alimentar assenta-se fundamentalmente na produ??o em pequena escala e localizada. A maioria da popula??o africana continua a depender na agricultura como uma importante, sen?o a principal, fonte de renda e subsist?ncia. Na maioria de pa?ses Subsarianos, a agricultura ? a atividade econ?mica b?sica para 50% a 90% da popula??oiii. Ainda que haja crescente urbaniza??o, a maioria continuar? a depender na agricultura para a sua subsist?ncia durante as pr?ximas d?cadas. A popula??o rural continua a aumentar em termos absolutos mesmo quando a popula??o urbana aumenta como propor??o da popula??o total.

Sabemos que nem todas estas pessoas beneficiar?o destes novos investimentos. Vistas como mais ineficientes do que os/as produtores/as que est?o numa posi??o de adoptar as novas tecnologias, muitas ser?o for?adas a abandonar a agricultura para se tornarem consumidoras passivas. Em vez de ampliar a grande base de produtores/as, os investimentos pelos G8 e pela AGRA, apoiados por pol?ticas e recursos dos governos africanos, ir?o reduzir a base de produtores/as.

Os resultados pr?ticos da onda recente de investimentos na agricultura africana exp?em a retorica da seguran?a alimentar africana. S?o bem conhecidas as usurpa??es de terra flagrantes atrav?s do continente. Megaprojetos tais como o projeto ProSavanna no norte de Mo?ambique est?o a despojar agricultores/as das suas terras e a impor estruturas para produ??o em grande escala para exporta??o. Investimentos em termos favor?veis (por exemplo, zonas livres de impostos e leis sobre a repatria??o de lucros) minam at? mesmo os benef?cios question?veis trazidos por um aumento em c?mbios. Entretanto agricultores/as efetivos/as s?o removidos da terra e da ?nica op??o realista para subsist?ncia. Os governos africanos e os seus ?parceiros? facilitam e implementam estes projetos.
Alternativas

Em primeiro lugar, estrat?gias diferenciadas s?o necess?rias, para que sejam reconhecidos e vigorosamente apoiados mercados locais e informais, t?cnicas agr?colas comprovadas baseadas no baixo uso de insumos e ecologicamente sustent?veis incluindo cons?rcios, produ??o local de adubo, sistemas agr?colas mistos (gado, culturas e ?rvores), produ??o e uso local de biocombust?vel, e tecnologias intermedi?rias de processamento e armazenagem. A enfase aqui ?, na primeira inst?ncia, na seguran?a alimentar individual e do lar, com comercializa??o da produ??o excedente para al?m desta. A Avalia??o Internacional do Conhecimento Agr?cola, Ci?ncia e Tecnologia para o Desenvolvimento (IAASTD) oferece propostas detalhadas e comprovadas cientificamente a este respeito. Tecnologias de acesso aberto s?o um princ?pio essencial, especialmente em rela??o a sementes, onde todos os avan?os tecnol?gicos recentes s?o baseados em 10,000 anos de experimenta??o e compartilha colectivas. Ningu?m nem nenhuma corpora??o deveriam ser permitidos privatizar os resultados de pesquisa em curso. As companhias podem vender as suas variedades novas, mas uma vez vendidas, elas reentram a colec??o comum que qualquer pessoa deve ser capaz de usar e melhorar ? sua vontade.

O desenvolvimento tecnol?gico da Revolu??o Verde leva a um fosso cada vez maior entre a concep??o e a execu??o, isto ?, entre o conhecimento usado para a produ??o de uma variedade nova de semente e aqueles/as que usam a mesma semente. Uma alternativa, baseada em tecnologias de uso livre ou fonte aberta, ? uma rela??o de trabalho muito mais estreita entre t?cnicos/as descentralizados/as e produtores/as para definir a agenda de investiga??o e desenvolvimento (que caracter?sticas procuram os/as agricultores/as em locais espec?ficos, que culturas s?o prioridade para desenvolvimento, etc.). Cultivadores/as ou melhoristas de plantas s?o ainda capazes de fazer lucros vendendo as suas variedades novas aqueles/as que querem comprar sementes frescas, especialmente agricultores/as comerciais. Mas se agricultores/as escolhem reusar e adaptar sementes uma vez que a tenham comprado, esse deve ser o seu direito.
N?s, portanto, apelamos aos G8, AGRA, CAADP e outras institui??es semelhantes para:

Reconhecerem a varia??o entre agricultores/as e comprometerem-se a fornecer apoio apropriado e dedicado a todos/as os/as produtores/as de alimentos, e n?o s? a uma pequena camada comercial;
Abandonarem esfor?os para reclamar a propriedade privada do germoplasma, t?cnicas e conhecimento agr?colas e aceitarem que todos estes emergem de uma colec??o comum;
Investirem em e facilitarem o desenvolvimento de tecnologias de uso livre em conjunto com os/as agricultores/as;
Investirem em agricultura ecol?gica de acordo com as propostas do IAASTD; Que financiamento para desenvolvimento seja baseado em subs?dios e programas p?blicos n?o lucrativos;
Assegurarem que pequenos agricultores e pequenas agricultoras estejam ao centro de qualquer estrat?gia para aumentar investimentos neste sector. Deveria haver reconhecimento das consulta??es em andamento do Comit? de Seguran?a Alimentar Mundial (CFS) em Investimentos Agr?colas Respons?vel (RAI). Este processo foi o resultado de uma decis?o do CFS em 2011 ap?s a sua rejei??o, em 2010, do modelo do Banco Mundial para Princ?pios de Investimento Agr?cola Respons?vel.

Por favor assinem a declara??o:
Networks

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), consistindo dos seguintes membros:African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth- Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers? Forum (ESAFF), La Via Campesina Africa, FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS) and Plate forme Sous R?gionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
Tanzania Biodiversity Alliance comprising of: ACRA, ActionAid International Tanzania; African Biodiversity Network; African Centre for Biodiversity (South Africa) Bioland; BioRe; BioSustain; Community Water & Environmental Association; (COWEA); CVM/APA (Comunit? Volontari per il Mondo / AIDS partnership with Africa); Envirocare; ESAFF; MVIWATA;PELUM; Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania; Swissaid; ANCERT; Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement and Tushiriki.
Alliance for Agro-Ecology and Biodiversity, Zambia Conservation, Zambia
People?s Dialogue
Rural Women?s Assembly

Organisations

African Cenre for Biosafety, South Africa
Biowatch, South Africa
JINUKUN (B?nin)
Surplus People Project, South Africa
Women and Resources, Eastern and Southern Africa
FoodMattersZimbabwe
Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre, Zambia
Trust for Community Outreach and Training, South Africa
Inades Formation

i World Bank 2009 ?Awakening Africa?s sleeping giant: Prospects for commercial agriculture in Africa?s Guinea Savannah zone and beyond?, World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Unit, Africa Regional Office

ii McMichael, P. 2009 ?A food regime genealogy?, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36: 1, pp.139-169

iii World Bank, ?World Databank?, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
African Centre for Biosafety Activist Corner
[/vc_tab][/vc_tour][/vc_column][/vc_row]