Irene at the National Family Farm Coalition sent along this link to a blog covering the geopolitics of African agriculture. Doesn't sound promising, but it's a winner, and is the newest inductee into the blogroll and newswire.

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Posted on 26 May, 2008 - 05:47

For anyone interested in genetic engineering in Africa, the must-be-on list is GM Free Africa. From their bourn comes a reader about biofuels, and the harm they're already causing. Props to Teresa Anderson for compiling all this. Here's her introductory note, followed by links.

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

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

This year has seen the beginning of what promises to be the next new large-scale threat to Africa's food, land, environment and farmers - Biofuels.

The reality of Climate Change has now been accepted by world governments and industry, and with it, acceptance that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels is responsible for heating the planet's atmosphere and changing weather patterns. ... read more »

Raj's blog | 2 comments | email this page

Posted on 7 May, 2007 - 19:34

The Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration - the ETC Group - is a touchstone for research on corporate concentration in agriculture. Here's a release from them about the 'New Green Revolution in Africa'.

___________

ETC Group today releases a 16-page review of five new initiatives intended to launch what ETC dubs "Green Revolution 2.0" in Africa.

Leading the charge is a plan to construct four Centers of Excellence together with a second initiative called the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. ... read more »

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Posted on 18 April, 2007 - 16:21

The 2007 World Summit on Food Sovereignty has come to an end. Of the many good things at the conference's website is one of the best definitions of Food Sovereignty. Here are the edited highlights from the Declaration, to which 500 representatives from over 80 countries signed their names:

We are fighting for a world where… ... read more »

• …all peoples, nations and states are able to determine their own food producing systems and policies that provide every one of us with good quality, adequate, affordable, healthy, and culturally appropriate food;
  

  Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

  Africa | food sovereignty | Mali | Nyéléni

  
  Posted on 1 March, 2007 - 01:41

Yes, I've just come back from one international conference, having cast a few (and soon many more) aspersions on it. But not all such gigs are lamentable. Via Campesina's African organisations are mounting a major colloquium on food sovereignty in Mali later this month. The forum, oddly enough, is called "Nyéléni 2007". Here's a short gloss explaining why.

"Nyéléni was an only child, which in Africa was considered a curse. Nyéléni, as a girl and only child of her parents, suffered in her youth from all the mocking her parents were subjected to. She secretly resolved to remove this slur that men had cast on her by defeating them on their own ground, that is to say agriculture and working of the land. ... read more »

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Posted on 11 February, 2007 - 18:57

One of the reasons it has been a slow week here at Stuffed and Starved is that I've been busy editing the final draft of the book. Inevitably, editing means cutting things. And one of the cuts concerns the reign of biopiracy in Africa. If you don't know what biopiracy or intellectual property rights mean for the poor, this post offers an introduction. I was sad to lose it from the book, because it showed how The Economist has done an about face on intellectual property - it now supports them, when once it didn't. Its original arguments were stronger.

But, since this was a little too dry for the book, out it came. And here it is for your reading pleasure (and you can read the entire thing, formatted and with footnotes, here).

------------

The idea behind intellectual property rights is based on this three step argument:

1. Progress depends upon inventions.
2. Inventions will be under-provided without sufficient incentives.
3. Intellectual rights offer the best mechanism for creating these incentives.

Although the economists in the nineteenth century limited themselves to taking issue with the last of these steps, those with faith in it might see it as progress that, today, all three of these assertions have their detractors.

The trade-off question is this: how do you balance the rights of the creator of an invention with the public’s right to “share in scientific advancement and its benefits”?

The least-worst solution, with which most of the world lives, is patenting. Patents provide a time-limited monopoly for the inventor so that the costs of invention, plus a reward for having done it, can be recouped.

At the same time, patents demand that the invention be put in the public domain, even if only the inventor can commercialise it so that everyone can start benefiting from the knowledge, if not the product, and that rivals can figure out how to make it so that, once the monopoly expires, they can jump right into the marketplace.

A first problem is that one never knows quite how long a monopoly ought to be allowed. One doesn’t want it too short, so that the costs of invention aren’t recouped, but one doesn’t want it too long, so that the monopoly endures way beyond the costs of invention and reasonable profit, at the public expense. If the costs of your invention, plus a handsome profit, can be recouped in a month, it’s hard to make a case that you should have a monopoly for twenty years, when the society that gave you the monopoly might then take it back, and start benefiting from month two.

The trouble is every invention, its costs, and its profits, are different. To measure every single one would, it is argued, raise the costs of the system to unacceptable heights. The solution to the problem, then, has been to award a set-duration monopoly.

It’s highly unusual for economists to condone monopolies. But John Stuart Mill’s view, which has since become canonical, explains it like this:

“The condemnation of monopolies ought not to extend to patents, by which the originator of an improved process is allowed to enjoy, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege of using his own improvement. This is not making the commodity dear for his benefit, but merely postponing a part of the increased cheapness which the public owe to the inventor, in order to compensate and reward him for the service. ... read more »

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Ch. 6. Pesticides, Genetic Engineering, Public Science, Cuba | Africa | Africa | biopiracy | innovation | intellectual property | inventions | rights | The Economist

Posted on 10 February, 2007 - 02:47

Microsoft has now launched its new operating system - Windows Vista. Within a year, 100 million computers will be running it. The code underneath the hood of the operating system is a tightly kept secret. There's no way to fix it if it's broken, other than to wait for Microsoft to come out with a patch. Indeed, most users won't have a choice about whether they want it - it'll come standard with new computers. Unlike free, open source software, Vista will depends for its adoption on market domination, heavy advertising, and unforgiving software license contracts that force businesses to upgrade to it.

It's a business model that keeps the cash flowing into Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, and thence into the pockets of Bill Gates, whose net worth is now a shade over $50 billion. Which begs the question: how do you spend that kind of money?

To some extent, the decision was made for him. In the 1990s, when he faced a series of potentially serious lawsuits, Gates announced that he was going to give away large slabs of his money. As the jury deliberated, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was launched. Today, it sits on an endowment of over $30 billion, a pile that includes some of Warren Buffet's loose change. Together, Buffet and the Gates' aim to fight hunger and poverty. Africa is in their sights. And they've promised to bring the same no-nonsense business approach to spending their money as they brought to earning it.

This is why their New Philanthropy is certain to do more harm than good.

... read more »

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Posted on 30 January, 2007 - 21:48

It's important to have moments of collectivity, to remember that another world *is* possible. And yesterday at the World Social Forum, over five thousand people marched to remind each other, and the world, of exactly that. Here's a report from the AFP newswire.

AFP
January 20, 20007

Thousands march in Nairobi at anti-globalisation forum

Photo: http://tinyurl.com/yu9u82

By Karen Calabria

NAIROBI

Anti-globalisation activists were marching through Africa's largest slum, calling for an end to conflict and a new war on poverty at the start of a major protest against global capitalism. ... read more »

Raj's blog | add new comment | email this page

Posted on 21 January, 2007 - 05:47