AGRA and Monsanto attempts at export-led solutions are not comprehensive. Post harvest technologies must be a part of the broader food security agenda. Production-driven initiatives display a disproportionate concern for yields and less concern for food as it travels through the food chain. These partially planned initiatives contribute to delayed success and continued hunger. Rather than investments in educational programs for farmers, storage facilities, or infrastructures that could improve output, protect culturally-preferred varieties, and maximize what is saved and sold from harvests, “such of the pledged money by the Gates Foundation is directed at agricultural biotechnology and other intensive agricultural solutions, involving corporations such as Monsanto……agro-input dealers, to support fertilizer use” . Nothing is inherently wrong with local varietals so arguments to replace them are not logically obvious, particularly since alternative solutions have not been exhausted. Indeed, even critics of organic agriculture and traditional practices do not commonly assert that traditional seed is the cause of stalled production. Instead, advocates for GMOs in Africa speak of soil nutrient depletion . However, this problem is also found where modified crops are planted and does not reflect limitations unique to farmer-traded varieties. Proponents present modified seed as a natural solution to food insecurity on the continent.

That they suggest investments in foreign and proprietary seed,dutch bucket hydroponic as opposed to resolutions directly pertaining to soil health restoration of which they frequently make mention, appears non sequitur and irrelevant to their principal claim. International interest in the subject of food in Africa was sparked decades ago by images of East African famine. From the onset, misreading of the causes of hunger led the discourse. In 1975, political economist Michael Lofchie pointed to a discordance between policy and scholarship which persists some four decades later. In “Political and Economic Origins of Hunger,” the scholar notes that the relationship between drought and famine had been erroneously interpreted as cause and effect. The relationship between hunger and a lack of food are likewise misunderstood, and the work of dispelling these notions continues. Of course, drought is not endogenous to Africa. The state of California, which derives more income from agriculture than any other state in the US , experienced one of the most severe droughts on historical record from 2012-2014. Soon after, in 2016, another record-breaking drought hit the food-producing regions of the northeastern United States. Despite some economic setbacks, these incidences neither resulted in increased hunger for farmers nor the domestic markets that rely on their outputs. This is because the United States has among the most diverse export portfolios in the world, not fragilely dependent upon the success of a single commodity. As such, the nation can shift to offset food losses with import purchases from elsewhere and easily establish credit when needed. It is therefore incomplete to attribute starvation to incidences of extreme weather. These conditions occur in every world region and result in varying outcomes related to wealth and politics. Globally, there is plenty of food. Poor purchasing power, exacerbated by trade liberalization, gives poorer nations less options when faced with otherwise mild and common challenges such as bouts of extreme weather or a year of unsuccessful harvests.

Thus, decades later, where there has been little to no change in the social, political, or economic conditions that create vulnerability to famine, populations remain plagued by hunger and the threat of hunger. It should be understood by donors and others concerned with food insecurity in Africa that GM seeds are intellectual property. That is, they are patented and, unlike local seed varieties, farmers who use them must pay royalties. AGRA programs do not use GM varieties as other production-driven initiatives do. This allows them to operate in more places on the continent, as some SADC members states have strict regulations regarding GM varieties . However, some of the commercial hybrids they employ are likewise patented. Both GM and non-GM hybrid seeds are unproductive in the second generation; therefore, they cannot be saved or shared and must be repurchased every growing season. Unpatented high-yielding hybrid seeds are manipulated to produce certain traits but are also genetically unstable and feature poor yields and lower disease resistance in the second generation . This means that they, too, require routine annual investments. In contrast, native open-pollinated varieties are stable, as they have naturally-adapted genetic variations to the environment and maintain their characteristics over many seasons. Importantly, local seed does not require repeated purchasing, which saves smallholders money and allows them to avoid the pressure to command substantial profits in efforts to recoup expensive upfront costs and loan repayments. Purchasing proprietary seed involves costs other than the seed, alone. It requires specific fertilizers and pesticides, which seed proprietors also own, giving them a monopoly on all agricultural needs for smallholders once they adopt a GM or hybrid variety. In these arrangements, agrochemical companies benefit threefold. In this manner, Monsanto and other Western-based companies, such as Dupont and Syngenta, represent pipelines of African funds to Western economies.

In 2002, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe rejected US food aid because of concerns over GM maize . Many African nations are reluctant to integrate GMOs, even as emergency assistance, because it threatens long-standing trade relations with Europe. European countries explicitly deny imports of GM crops, especially in the form of raw commodities, which, since Africa is still developing its value-added product sector, describes the majority of African exports. Converting agricultural lands to GM species, therefore, could result in a net-loss in export opportunities. Agribusiness entities argue that African nations will find alternative markets if rejected by EU member states, but such is not guaranteed. Since it is observed that African nations currently struggle to unload surpluses of non-GM products, eliminating an entire continent of potential buyers will surely exacerbate the issue and have a catastrophic effect on national economies. The European Union upholds strict regulations, with a 0.9% coexistence threshold for feed uses and zero tolerance for any unapproved GM trait event in products for human consumption . In recent years, importers have tested these restrictions and been consistently turned away. “he zero tolerance policy on unapproved GM traits in the EU has cost international commodity traders in excess of US $1 billion” . The concerns of African leaders, therefore, reflect political and market realities that must be examined. African nations that wish to produce both GM and non-GM varietals face the risk of cross-pollination, hence the aforementioned aid refusals. Smyth, Kerr, and Phillip propose a compensation fund to insure smallholders and nations against export commodity losses should unintentional comingling occur, allowing nations to adopt GM seeds at less risk. Should agribusiness stakeholders in the US, Canada, and Australia fund and participate in a backed guarantee such as this,dutch buckets system it would demonstrate certainty in the quality of their products and confidence that there are no impending cross-pollination concerns. It would also serve to restore faith in claims that their approaches are truly geared towards hunger alleviation and poverty reduction, rather than securing new markets for their technologies. The United States is unmatched in the quantity of GM products it produces, cultivating three times as much as the second biggest producer, Argentina. GM food dominance in the United States, however, should not be interpreted as the global standard. Only 28 of the world’s 196 nations produce GM crops , and 38 nations have official bans on GM seeds . Biotech and agribusiness industries present GM food crops and other lab-produced hybrids as a necessary development, the next natural step in over 10,000 years of agricultural evolution. Those who hold this perspective argue that the opposed are antiscience and committed to dated ideals. However, the hesitance of SADC nations, who export to many of the 38 countries with bans, is a measured and strategic response, rather than an uneducated fear of new developments.

African leaders are not opposed to modernization and science, but the use and trade of ag technology must be rendered fair in order to benefit their nations. Resolving these concerns will perhaps ultimately require reforms that establish more equitable terms of trade. “ore countries have far greater discretion over the terms of their participation in the global economic system,” while poorer, peripheral nations with little to no control in the global marketplace are left to “accept the terms of trade they are confronted with” . Often, organizations that attempt to step in and fill in the gaps left by this arrangement assume they have the solution and fail to lead with a people-first approach. Though the World Bank and partner organizations, like AGRA, continue to state an intended goal of producing “sufficient growth in food crops not merely to maintain output per person, but also to reduce food calorie deficits and to lower food imports” , it is difficult to reconcile this sentiment with programs found on the continent, which favor marketing and disseminating private sector technologies over creating tangible and immediate solutions to daily food insecurity. The African Center for Biodiversity’s research in Malawi and Tanzania, discussed above, surveyed participants in AGRA initiatives to better understand the utility of the programs, reveal potential shortcoming, and make suggestions; but there are many smallholders who were not included in the samples, having rejected participation in AGRA initiatives from the onset. In a study assessing why few farmers are using improved crop varieties, Tanzanian districts were surveyed , with non-participating smallholders overwhelmingly reporting that the cost of improved seed is simply out of reach . Though some types of hybrids can be recycled for another season, the initial investment is reportedly too expensive for many. Even with subsidy vouchers, which give farmers half off the price of improved seed, heirloom varieties remain less expensive and are often free. Two kilos of hybrid seed sold to smallholders at $3.70 USD, while open-pollenated varieties were priced at $1.85 USD in Mkuranga, for example . Many farmers were unable to purchase either. Democratizing access to food means that all are provided means by which to achieve adequate nutrition, not merely those who can pay high costs. Until trade conditions are more ideal, it is unwise to bet a nation’s health and nutrition on fluctuating soft commodity export prices and the will of other nations. SADC member states with delicate economies would be best served by prioritizing efforts toward food self sufficiency, and engaging exports as a separate matter. Western interventions such as those discussed in this paper are not remedying the hunger issue for groups that struggle with it the most. “onstellations of power align to support biotechnology at the expense of other technological possibilities” , and African governments have been complicit in this. Regarding malnutrition, federal capital should be focused on domestic efforts to serve citizens directly, as opposed to partnering with foreign private enterprises. The basic health and well-being of citizens is the responsibility of governments, and government programs that encourage a more food self-sufficient nation provide the best insurance against food insecurity. Four decades of scientific research reveal that agroecological and diversified farming methods produce the best defense against the climate conditions and fragile markets that threaten food security . A measured and deliberate effort to manage domestic food production and industrial production as separate issues is required. “hanging food habits away from traditional drought resistant staples such as sorghum and millets to water dependent staples such as maize, rice, and wheat are making Africa more vulnerable to weather-related shocks” . Indeed, unearthing some pre-colonial agricultural practices could reveal the most resilient food species and methods for the African environment. Agroecological practices can be utilized at low costs to smallholders and, as opposed to investments in industrial technology, relies on deep understandings of local climate, soils, fauna, and ways to maximize community assets and resources to increase outputs. In a global study, 8.98 million farmers, including some smallholders in Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya, were able to increase crop yields up to 93% using inexpensive locally-available technologies , revealing that intensive practices using hybrid and GM seeds are not the only ways to produce impactful results. Such efforts should be scaled up. Formalizing and training rural smallholders on methods such as these, as is done in FMSS, is an accessible step toward improved production for the purposes of domestic consumption.