DOCSLIB.ORG

Biowatch South Africa Response to the HLPE V0 Report: Agroecological

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biowatch South Africa Response to the HLPE V0 Report: Agroecological 222 Evans Road, Glenwood, Durban, South Africa Tel: +27(0)31 206 2954 Fax: +27(0)86 510 1537 www.biowatch.org.za Attention: HLPE Project team and steering committee By email: [email protected] [email protected]. 19 November 2018 Biowatch South Africa response to the HLPE V0 Report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HLPE V0 Report: ‘Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition’. We challenge the HLPE to look at agroecology and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition (our underline) and critique the literature, before including it in this document as innovations. It is not helpful to include “innovative” practices that use toxic herbicides and pesticides, GMOs and new unregulated biotechnologies, or other practices that do not address the devastating climatic and biodiversity crisis that the earth faces and if not addressed, will result in devastating food insecurity and nutrition. Nor, should “innovation” lead to the further dispossession of peoples’ land and resources, or undermine their human rights. We urge the HLPE to be bold, to use the opportunity that they have, to take a transformative step that may be unpopular in the short term, but is of necessity to life on earth. Our submission follows below and consists of: 1. Introduction to Biowatch South Africa 2. Comments on the HLPE V0 Report Yours sincerely Rose Williams Director Trust No. IT 4212/99 Board Members: Dr David Fig (chairperson), Prof. Loretta Feris, Ms Thoko Makhanya, Dr Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo, Ms Beni Williams, Ms Rose Williams, Prof. Rachel Wynberg 1. Biowatch South Africa Biowatch is a non-governmental organisation established in 1999, which strives for social and environmental justice within the context of food sovereignty. Biowatch works to challenge unsustainable agricultural practices and to advocate for agroecology as an ecologically viable alternative that safeguards people and land. This includes supporting smallholder farmers; working with civil society to create joint understanding and action; and constructively engaging with government in implementing policies and practices that promote, facilitate and actively support agroecology and farmers’ rights. We have a long track record of working on policy issues concerning agriculture, biodiversity, seed and indigenous knowledge systems. 2. Comments on the HLPE V0 1. The V0 draft is wide-ranging in analyzing the contribution of agroecological and other innovative approaches to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN). Is the draft useful in clarifying the main concepts? Do you think that the draft appropriately covers agroecology as one of the possible innovative approaches? Does the draft strike the right balance between agroecology and other innovative approaches? The chapter on agroecology does provide a comprehensive overview of the history of the developing definitions and concepts of agroecology as a science, practice and movement. However, the section on ‘agroecology as a social movement’ (1.1.3) does not give enough recognition to the role of indigenous societies in developing the diverse agroecological systems and related knowledge and foods that underlie all cultures (not just those identified by the FAO as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’) and their agency in advancing agroecology. We support the emphasis of “agroecology addresses … the economic and social dimensions of food systems in an indivisible way”, but the role of agroecology as a means to achieve the right to food through transformation of food systems, and local and regional food sovereignty must have more emphasis in the text. This component of food sovereignty – that is the localisation and control of food systems – is also missing in the ‘Definition 2: Agroecological approach to FSN’ (page 30) for this report. In relation to this, the document is set out with agroecology as just one of, and distinct from, the approaches described as innovations in Chapter 2, whereas civil society organisations in South Africa and elsewhere (as indicated by the Nyeleni Declarations on Food sovereignty and Agroecology) view agroecology as the means to realise the right to food and nutrition, and to transform what is patently an unsustainable and destructive food system. 2. Have an appropriate range of innovative approaches been identified and documented in the draft? If there are key gaps in coverage of approaches, what are these and how would they be appropriately incorporated in the draft? Does the draft illustrate correctly the contributions of these approaches to FSN and sustainable development? The HLPE acknowledges that these approaches could be better articulated in the draft, and their main points of convergence or divergence among these approaches could be better illustrated. Could the following set of “salient dimensions” help to characterize and compare these different approaches: human- 2 Biowatch SA_ response to the HLPE V0 Agroecology Report November 2018 rights base, farm size, local or global markets and food systems (short or long supply chain), labor or capital intensity (including mechanization), specialization or diversification, dependence to external (chemical) inputs or circular economy, ownership and use of modern knowledge and technology or use of local and traditional knowledge and practices? Although the report acknowledges that “there is unequivocal evidence that supports the important role of agroecology for enhancing FSN with benefit demonstrated at a social, environmental and economic level’ and answers most of the key concerns regarding agroecology with evidence; the report goes on to discuss other approaches without the same rigour – and often cherry-picking perceived benefits or negatives in the descriptions of the approach. This counters the purpose of a workstream centred on agroecology, which is to address transformation of the food system due to: • The growing number of undernourished, malnourished and hungry people despite the current food system already providing sufficient calorie quantity of food for a population of 9 billion (i.e. population in 2050); • The current food system’s enormous negative impact on the climate (GRAIN 2011)1, biodiversity, waters, lands and indigenous peoples. This transformation is urgent as our ability to satisfy food and nutrition security into the future is fundamentally premised on the ability of the earth’s ecosystems to continue to support life. We therefore agree that the innovation chapter can better compare and distinguish the different approaches, and in some cases, exclude them from the chapter as they will not support sustainable agriculture and food systems or food security and nutrition. This would give a more succinct analysis to inform policy recommendations and the steps required to transform food systems. This could be achieved by assessing these against the specific principles of agroecology; or the overarching principles for sustainable food systems and the 5 pillars that have been identified as the framework for achieving SFS for FSN. Despite the effort to set out this framework, neither the overarching principles or the 5 pillars are used consistently in the analysis of innovations in the report. The only comparative analysis is in the form of Table 3 (page 36), which uses a new list of criteria described as ‘key aspects of FSN’ in Box 7 (page 34), without motivating why these particular aspects were chosen and their relationship to the conceptual framework for FSN outlined in the Introduction. It is also not clear how the applicability of these Key aspects was decided for each innovation in Table 3. For example, we disagree that Agroecology does not address issues of governance (represented by a X). In being grounded in local communities it directly addresses the livelihoods and wellbeing of stakeholders. It also engages with food system change, with the aim of food sovereignty, and therefore is implicitly engaged with food system governance and power dynamics. In this regard, Figure 6 (page 37, line 23) is disingenuous in that it gives the impression that all 9 approaches satisfy the principles and pillars identified as contributing to the outcomes of SFS for FNS, when they do so in varying measures and some of the approaches are contrary to some of the principles and pillars (for example, approaches such as conservation agriculture, Climate Smart Agriculture, sustainable intensification etc) which may achieve one production principle but continue to use or even promote the use of toxic synthetic inputs). Such approaches, should in our view, not be included in the Figure or the document. For example, policy-makers shouldn’t be given the impression that these are approaches with equal impact, but rather that these are approaches in a continuum from industrial agriculture to 1 GRAIN. September 2011. Food and climate change: the forgotten link. Against the Grain. http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4357- food-and-climate-change-the-forgotten-link 3 Biowatch SA_ response to the HLPE V0 Agroecology Report November 2018 agroecology, where the focus must be on transitioning to agroecology. We are very concerned that the report and resultant policy recommendations shouldn’t provide opportunities to circumvent the radical change needed to fix
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Uptake of Genetically Modified White Maize by Smallholder Farmers: the Case of Hlabisa, South Africa
    Exploring the uptake of genetically modified white maize by smallholder farmers: The case of Hlabisa, South Africa Mankurwana H Mahlase MHLMAN031 Town Cape A dissertation submitted in full fulfilmentof of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Environmental and Geographical Science University Faculty of Science University of Cape Town October 2016 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town COMPULSORY DECLARATION This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation from the work, or works, of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced. Signature: Date: ii Abstract The use of genetically modified (GM) crops to resolve food security and poverty issues has been met with controversy and scepticism. The rationale for this research was to highlight the nuanced reasons as to why smallholder farmers are motivated to use agricultural biotechnology. The aim of this study was to explore the uptake of GM maize by South African smallholder farmers in order to contribute towards understanding the implications of agricultural biotechnology in smallholder agriculture. Using the case studies of Hlabisa in KwaZulu-Natal, the objectives were; (i) to investigate the perceived benefits and problems associated with the uptake of GM maize.
    [Show full text]
  • Third World Network
    TWN Third World Network November 19, 2020 Director-General Qu Dongyu UN Food and Agriculture Organization Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy Dear Director-General Qu Dongyu, The 350 civil society and Indigenous Peoples organizations from 63 countries listed below represent hundreds of thousands of farmers, fisherfolk, agricultural workers and other communities, as well as human rights, faith-based, environmental and economic justice institutions. We are writing to express our deep concern over your stated plans to strengthen official ties with CropLife International. We strongly urge you to reconsider this alliance. Deepening collaboration with CropLife, a trade association representing the interests of corporations which produce and promote dangerous pesticides, directly undermines FAO’s priority of minimising the harms of chemical pesticide use worldwide, “including the progressive ban of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs).” It also undermines the principles set out in FAO’s Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, and ties the agency with producers of harmful, unsustainable chemical technologies — relinquishing FAO’s role as a global leader supporting innovative approaches to agricultural production that promote the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, sustainability and resilience. Reliance on hazardous pesticides is a short-term fix that undermines the rights to adequate food and health for present and future generations, as stated in the 2017 report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. A recent analysis of industry records documents that CropLife members, BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Syngenta, make more than one-third of their sales income from HHPs — the pesticides that are most harmful to human health and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity: Biodiversity, Access and Benefit-Sharing
    SANBI Biodiversity Series 3 The Convention on Biological Diversity: biodiversity, access and benefit-sharing. A resource for learners (Grades 10–12) by Anastelle Solomon & Paul Le Grange Pretoria 2006 SANBI Biodiversity Series The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) was established on 1 September 2004 through the signing into force of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) No. 10 of 2004 by President Thabo Mbeki. The Act expands the mandate of the former National Botanical Institute to include responsibilities relating to the full diversity of South Africa’s fauna and flora, and builds on the internationally respected programmes in conservation, research, education and visitor services developed by the National Botanical Institute and its predecessors over the past century. The vision of SANBI is to be the leading institution in biodiversity science in Africa, facilitating conservation, sustainable use of living resources, and human well-being. SANBI’s mission is to promote the sustainable use, conservation, ap- preciation and enjoyment of the exceptionally rich biodiversity of South Africa, for the benefit of all people. SANBI Biodiversity Series will publish occasional reports on projects, technologies, workshops, symposia and other activities initiated by or executed in partnership with SANBI. Illustrations: Tano September Technical editor: Emsie du Plessis Design & layout: Daleen Maree Cover design: Daleen Maree How to cite this publication SOLOMON, A. & LE GRANGE, P. 2006. The Convention on Biological Diversity: biodiversity, access and benefit-sharing. A resource for learners (Grades 10–12). SANBI Biodiversity Series 3. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. ISBN 1-919976-31-0 © Published by: South African National Biodiversity Institute Obtainable from: SANBI Bookshop, Private Bag X101, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Implications for Small Farmers
    Genetically Modified Crops in Africa: Implications for Small Farmers Devlin Kuyek August 2002 Implications for Small Farmers About this Briefing This briefing was researched and written by Devlin Contents Kuyek for Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) and a group of NGOs that aim to raise awareness about the implications of genetic engineering and intellectual property rights for 1. INTRODUCTION 1 small farmers in Africa. These NGOs include SACDEP (Kenya), RODI (Kenya), Biowatch (South Africa), ISD (Ethiopia), Jeep (Uganda), CTDT (Zimbabwe), Pelum (Regional, Southern 2. THE PAST PREDICTS THE FUTURE 1 Africa), ITDG (International), Gaia Foundation (International) and ActionAid (International). Did Africa miss a revolution? 1 The briefing looks at the push to bring GM crops and technologies to Africa and tries to sort out what Africa’s Green Revolution 2 the implications will be for Africa’s small farmers. It especially focuses on the situation in East and Southern Africa. The briefing does not share the 3. THE FORCES BEHIND THE CROPS 4 optimism of the proponents of genetic engineering. Rather, it views genetic engineering as an extension Who are the crop pushers? 4 of the Green Revolution paradigm that failed to address the needs of Africa’s small farmers and served only to exacerbate their problems. 4. TRUSTING THE ‘EXPERTS’ 7 The many groups and individuals who gave time and information to the preparation of this paper Bt Cotton and biosafety 10 are gratefully acknowledged. Comments on the paper may be addressed to Devlin Kuyek at [email protected] 5. SURELY THERE’S A BETTER WAY? 13 Published in August 2002, by Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN): Sweeter potatoes without biotech 13 Girona 25, pral, Barcelona 08010, Spain Tel: +34 933 011 381 Bt Maize: Big companies working for Fax: +34 933 011 627 big farmers 15 Email: [email protected] 1 Web: www.grain.org Green Revolution, Gene Revolution ..
    [Show full text]
  • Statement from the Seed and Knowledge Seminar Salt Rock, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa 13-15 September, 2016
    STATEMENT FROM THE SEED AND KNOWLEDGE SEMINAR SALT ROCK, KWAZULU-NATAL, SOUTH AFRICA 13-15 SEPTEMBER, 2016 A CALL TO REVIVE, RESTORE AND STRENGTHEN FARMER-LED SEED SYSTEMS Seed is the very essence of life. It is central to our diverse cultures and spiritualities, foods, ecologies, knowledge systems and economies. But seed is under siege. It has been colonised and commodified by elite interests that support and promote destructive industrial agriculture, which is costing the Earth. While industrial agriculture feeds less than a third of the world’s population, it monopolises our land and water. This system − with its monocultures, hybrid and genetically modified seeds, chemical inputs and high fossil fuel consumption − is a leading contributor to climate change and environmental degradation. It creates unhealthy communities, poisoning us and filling our stomachs with corrupt calories, mostly devoid of nutrients. It also undermines and marginalises the diverse smallholder farming systems that have nourished us for centuries, creating economic dependencies and locking farmers into cycles of debt. It is rapidly being viewed as an outdated approach that is unable to respond to the changes the world is facing. Our vision, together with that of millions of farmers, consumers and citizens across the world, is for our food production systems to revive and enhance tried and tested methods that are low-carbon and low-input in nature; to preserve and regenerate resources rather than destroy them; and to support diverse and small-scale farming systems. This movement affirms and advocates for a world where agriculture is productive and sustainable, where food is nutritious and culturally appropriate, and where farmer-led seed and knowledge systems are valued and supported.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio Regulation.Indd
    Regulation of GMOs in South Africa details and shortcomings Mariam Mayet “...Although the South African government is fully aware of the risks associated with GMOs, it would be very short sighted to place a ban on genetic engineering when the full potential of this technology has not yet been explored. Any provisions within the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that are not currently addressed in the GMO Act will be incorporated in the review of the Act” Thoko Didiza, Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs(i) (i) Letter from Ms A. Thoko Didiza, Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs, to African Centre for Biosafety in response to “Open Letter from African Civil Society addressed to the South African delegation to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, dated 23 March 2004”. (As a result of a Cabinet reshuffle, Thoko Didiza was appointed Minister of Public Works in May 2006.) The ACB has been motivated to write this paper by the coming into effect on the 17th April 2007, of the Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Act (No. 23 of 2006).(ii) This amends the Genetically Modified Organisms Act No. 15 of 1997 (‘GMO Act’), 10 years after it became part of the body of post-apartheid statutes in South Africa. The author has in the past few years, on behalf of the NGO, Biowatch South Africa, thoroughly interrogated and critiqued the GMO Act.(iii) In addition, the ACB has interrogated countless permit applications in terms of the GMO Act,(iv) and thus, offers this document as a further contribution to our on-going work in the field of biosafety in South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Food and Nutrition Watch
    RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION WATCH Overcoming Ecological Crises: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Human Rights 2020 ⁄ ISSUE 12 GLOBAL NETWORK FOR THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION The Right to Food and Nutrition Watch is the flagship publication of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, which comprises the following organizations and social movements: African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) FIAN International South Africa Germany Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Fórum Brasileiro de Soberania Centre for Women (ARROW) e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional Malaysia (Brazilian Forum for Food Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security, FBSSAN) Association Paysanne pour le Développement Brazil (Peasant Association for Development, A.PA.DE) Habitat International Coalition-Housing and Togo Land Rights Network (HIC-HLRN) Egypt Association pour la protection de la nature au Sahel (Association for the Protection of Nature, HEKS/EPER (Swiss Church Aid) APN Sahel) Switzerland Burkina Faso Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN) Biowatch South Africa United Kingdom South Africa Interchurch Organization for Brot für Alle (Bread for All) Development Cooperation Switzerland (ICCO Cooperation) The Netherlands Brot für die Welt Germany International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) Centro Internazionale Crocevia (Crossroad Switzerland International Centre) Italy International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) USA CIDSE together for global justice (International Alliance International Union of Food, Agricultural, of Catholic Development Agencies) Hotel,
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Biotechnology Policies in South Africa Pamela Andanda*
    Status of Biotechnology Policies in South Africa Pamela Andanda* Abstract: Current progress with regard to the adoption, diffusion and regulation of biotechnology in Africa has mainly been in the area of agricultural biotechnology. Industrial and pharmaceutical sectors are still in their infancy. Most African countries rely on agriculture for economic growth as well as food security. Appropriate policies are necessary for progress in biotechnology and the development of such policies has been a great challenge for most African countries. To date, only a handful of African countries have policies and guidelines in place. In this paper, the policies that South Africa has developed for dealing with the issues related to adoption, diffusion and regulation of agricultural biotechnology are discussed for purposes of comparing the South African position with other African countries that have adopted biotechnology. Keywords: African countries, agricultural biotechnology, biotechnology policies, regulations, South Africa. Introduction The implementation of biosafety regimes that allow the safe harnessing while closely monitoring potential side effects is a priority across Africa. Notable efforts in this regard are currently at an advanced stage particularly in the agricultural sector: “agricultural ministers within the continent's largest trading bloc, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), have endorsed a Regional Approach to Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (RABESA)”.1 RABESA aims at tackling the issues that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) raise for trade and access to emergency food aid.2 Most African countries however face challenges in their attempts to develop and implement biosafety regimes because of lack of infrastructure, resources or capacity to implement the regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to and Control Over Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in South and Southern Africa: How Many Wrongs Before a Right?
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 6 2006 Access to and Control over Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in South and Southern Africa: How Many Wrongs Before a Right? Debbie Collier Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Recommended Citation Debbie Collier, Access to and Control over Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in South and Southern Africa: How Many Wrongs Before a Right?, 7 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 529 (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol7/iss2/6 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. COLLIER FINAL 6/7/2006 6:29:21 PM Access to and Control over Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in South and Southern Africa: How Many Wrongs Before a Right? Debbie Collier* “[I]f agriculture is in trouble, Africa is in trouble.”1 INTRODUCTION Agriculture is pivotal in the lives of many Africans. In southern Africa, approximately eighty percent of the population is engaged in subsistence farming.2 Yet the agricultural output in many African countries is inadequate to meet local needs.3 Food security in the region is negatively affected by a number of past and present, and internal and external, factors that include weather conditions, the colonial footprint, internal conflict, international trade obligations, market reform, and the impact of HIV/AIDS on community structure and livelihood. Many countries in the region are ultimately forced to rely upon © 2006 Debbie Collier. * Lecturer in the Law Faculty, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Opposition Thaws for GM Crops in Africa
    news Australia’s Queensland University of Technology net announcement on August 23 to establish a ing control of India’s seed business. “To allay for promoting AGM banana [for enhanced iron Rs 2.87 billion ($54.1 million) research center these fears, we have to fast track our regula- content],” DBT secretary Maharaj Kishan Bhan dedicated to agbiotech at Ranchi. tory policy for products made in India,” he told Nature Biotechnology. An indication that Bhan says the report’s negative conclusions suggests. the government is serious about promoting GM were likely prompted by the panel’s apprehen- Killugudi Jayaraman Bangalore India research, if not products, also came with a cabi- sion that multinational companies are tak- and Hepeng Jia Beijing Opposition thaws for GM crops in Africa By contrast, the African continent is overcoming its initial institutes—liable for any harm resulting from it, which meant nobody apprehensions about GM crops, prompted by skepticism in the was willing to take the risk. European export market and by the activities of NGOs. Earlier Currently, only a very few countries are opposed outright to GM. this year, Ghana’s recently established National Biosafety The only African country with a straight-up moratorium is Benin, Committee received three applications from scientists to whereas Angola simply says it is not interested. But there is still conduct research and field trials on GM crops, one for cowpea plenty of resistance to GM technology throughout Africa. The first and two for sweet potato. concern is whether the technology itself is safe for humans and If these applications are approved, Ghana will become the seventh animals as well as for the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroecology in South Africa: Policy and Practice
    Agroecology in South Africa: policy and practice A discussion document PO Box 29170, Melville 2109, South Africa www.acbio.org.za www.acbio.org.za Contents List of figures 3 List of images 3 List of abbreviations and acronyms 4 About this discussion paper 5 Structure of the paper 5 Engaging with policy 6 Introduction 6 What is an agroecological approach? 8 Salient features of South Africa’s Agricultural Sector 9 Commercial agriculture 9 Smallholder agriculture 9 Subsistent agriculture 9 Production 9 Contribution to the economy 10 Equity in the sector 10 South African agriculture: policy and status quo in relation to small-scale producers 10 Strategic Plan for Smallholder Support 12 Draft Agroecology Strategy 13 National Strategy for Indigenous Food Crops 14 Draft National Extension Policy 14 Draft Organic Policy 14 Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme 15 Recommendations 17 Annex 1: Agroecology on the ground in South Africa 19 Abalimi Bezekhaya and Harvest of Hope 19 Siyavuna Abalimi Development Centre 20 Biowatch South Africa 21 Ithemba Projects 22 Enaleni Farm 23 John Nzira – Ukuvuna Farm 25 The “foodie movement” and the youth 27 Transitioning to agroecology 28 Phillipi Horticultural Area (PHA) 29 References 30 The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) is a non-profit organisation, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was established to protect Africa’s biodiversity, traditional knowledge, food production systems, culture and diversity, from the threats posed by genetic engineering in food and agriculture. It, has in addition to its work in the field of genetic engineering, also opposed biopiracy, agrofuels and the Green Revolution push in Africa, as it strongly supports social justice, equity and ecological sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • Bt Cotton Risks and Opportunities for Transgenic Cotton Growing in Africa: Capitalizing on Experience Gained by South Africa, Burkina Faso and India
    enda diapol Bt Cotton Risks and Opportunities for transgenic cotton growing in Africa: Capitalizing on experience gained by South Africa, Burkina Faso and India 1 Bt Cotton 2 Bt Cotton 1 Bt Cotton 2 enda diapol Bt Cotton Risks and Opportunities for transgenic cotton growing in Africa: Capitalizing on experience gained by South Africa, Burkina Faso and India 3 Bt Cotton All correspondence concerning this publication should be sent to : Contacts : enda diapol, Sicap Sacré Coeur Transition 4, villa n° 8773 - PoBox : 7329 - Dakar - Senegal - Tel. : (221) 33 825 36 20 - Fax : (221) 33 825 36 32 - E-mail : [email protected] Web: http://www.endadiapol.org Coordinators of the publication : Moussa MBAYE, Mamadou Alimou BARRY Editorial Board : Abdoulaye KONE - Herman LANTING Review committee : Moussa MBAYE - Mamadou Alimou BARRY - Wêdémi Karine Raïssa OUEDRAOGO - Marina Isabelle Gueswendinda BAMBARA - Moussa TALL Cover and inside : credit photos, enda diapol / AProCA Layout : Noma CAMARA, Designer The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations concerned. © enda diapol / AProCA, dakar, 2011 PS : The reproduction of extracts is permitted without formality for non- commercial uses (education and training), provided that enda diapol and AProCA be quoted accurately. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. 9 LIst OF tables, FIGURES, GRAPHS AND notes .....................................
    [Show full text]