Big Ag and the Small-Scale African Farmer

The Gates Foundation spends billions on agriculture programs. But are they actually helping?

The headquarters of the world鈥檚 largest charitable foundation stretch along an entire block near downtown Seattle. There鈥檚 a plaza at the entrance, and to one side, a wall embossed in elegant gold lettering proclaims 鈥淭he Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.鈥�

Inside those walls, foundation staff every year on health, education, and poverty programs, a process that is and . But the foundation鈥檚鈥淒iscovery Center鈥� in front of HQ welcomes the public with glass walls and uplifting exhibits. There鈥檚 inspiring narrative about Bill Gates鈥� mission to use his Microsoft fortune to make the world a better place. And there are displays about the foundation鈥檚 work, such as one that reads:

鈥淢any of the world鈥檚 poorest people are small farmers鈥攎ostly women. They struggle to grow food to feed their families, facing challenges like poor soil and drought. If we help them grown healthy crops and earn more income, we can reduce poverty and hunger on a large scale.鈥�

The display features photographs of farmers in India and Africa in traditional dress, with crops and smiling children. Visitors are invited to 鈥淓xplore solutions to help farmers increase productivity.鈥� When they place blocks printed with 鈥渟olutions鈥濃€攕uch as genetically engineered golden rice鈥攊n the appropriate slots, the display lights up.

The messaging is presumably designed for school kids. But given the foundation鈥檚 huge impact on agricultural policy in the developing world, something seems to be missing.

鈥淭his is all aspirational. There鈥檚 no evidence presented for outcomes,鈥� says Timothy A. Wise, with a gesture toward the display. Wise is a senior researcher at the Small Planet Institute and at Tufts University鈥檚 Global Development and Environment Institute who takes issue with the Gates Foundation鈥檚 agricultural strategies. In his new book, Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food, he starts with the given that 1 billion people on Earth are chronically malnourished, while farmers around the globe are already struggling with climate change. His central question is one he says the Gates Foundation is not answering: How are we feeding people today to make sure we can all eat tomorrow?

Wise looks for answers on research trips to Africa (Mozambique, Zambia, and Malawi), Mexico and India, visiting farming communities where there is little safety margin and a bad year can mean hunger, even starvation. Each location provides a case study of good or bad practice in the context of a problem that is both global and local: the world food system is dominated by interests and policies that place profit over people and planet. 鈥淓verywhere I traveled in researching this book,鈥� he writes, 鈥渁gribusiness interests were being aggressively promoted, to the detriment of family famers, the environment, and the food and nutritional security of the world鈥檚 poor.鈥�

Corn crop in Marracuene, Mozambique. Climate change has devastated Southern Africa, leaving farmers desperate for resilient farming methods.

To understand what that has to do with the Gates Foundation, it helps to go back to the 鈥淕reen Revolution鈥� of the 1960s and 鈥�70s when programs to alleviate hunger pushed industrial farming鈥攈igh-yield seeds, inorganic fertilizers, and other chemicals鈥攖o farmers in Asia and Latin America. The 鈥済reen鈥� of that era meant plants, not environmentalism, and that Green Revolution, writes Wise, accomplished its mission: 鈥淧roduction increased, feeding growing populations and dissuading restive farmers from joining radical movements for land reform or wholesale revolution.鈥�

Fast forward to 2006 and the launch of a new Green Revolution, this time for Africa, when the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation formed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In 2008, when world food prices spiked and riots followed, governments in many developing countries set out to grow more of their own food. AGRA looked like the organization for the time, writes Wise, and its influence grew. The Gates Foundation, thanks to a massive endowment from Warren Buffett, has given AGRA about

But to many, the Green Revolution for Africa looked like 鈥渢he new colonialism,鈥� writes Wise: 鈥淎GRA preached improved seeds (mainly commercial hybrid and genetically modified varieties), soils (mainly through increased use of synthetic fertilizer), and markets (for the distribution of such inputs and the infrastructure to bring products to market.) And it offered cash payments for those who converted to its particular version of African agricultural development, dispensed as grants to governments, nongovernmental groups, and even for-profit initiatives. The approach was buttressed by expensive farm input subsidy programs (FISPs) which subsidized farmers to use those green-revolution seeds and fertilizers.鈥�

Those subsidies, he writes, were an ideal way to create dependency. Big Ag鈥檚 hybrid and GMO seeds must be purchased anew every year, and they鈥檙e designed to work best with synthetic fertilizer, pulling African small-scale farmers into a cycle of using subsidies to purchase hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilizers, rather than saving traditional seeds for foods their cultures have developed, grown, and eaten for thousands of years. The plan was to eventually increase yield to the extent that farmers could feed their families, have crops left over to sell, and use the cash to improve their standard of living and buy seeds and fertilizer for next year. Problem is, Wise says, things are not working out that way.

In an interview that began in front of that aspirational display at the Gates Foundation, Wise pointed out what he sees as AGRA鈥檚 evidence problem. 鈥淚n doing research on AGRA it has been striking to me that neither the Gates Foundation, nor AGRA itself, nor the donor governments that contribute to AGRA from the global north, have any published evaluation of the effectiveness of that aid. 鈥hey promised when they launched AGRA that their goal was to double productivity and incomes for 30 million African small-scale farmer households by 2021. There鈥檚 absolutely no evidence to suggest that that鈥檚 happening and they have not offered, that I鈥檝e seen, any evidence that they鈥檙e having that effect.鈥�

I reached out to the Gates Foundation and AGRA for comment after speaking to Wise鈥攁nd passed on his question: 鈥淲hat evidence can you supply that you are achieving a green revolution in Africa?鈥� AGRA鈥檚 acting head of communications sent a message citing several reports , like amounts of seeds and fertilizer supplied to farmers. But there was less detailed data for outputs like increases in income or crop yield or nutrition for smallholders and their families. And from the Gates Foundation鈥檚 press office, I got an automatic reply acknowledging receipt of my email and then鈥攏othing.

Wise鈥檚 book though, isn鈥檛 about the Gates Foundation or even AGRA, but rather about what he found is working or not working on the ground to increase yield, incomes, nutrition, and climate resiliency. Take his research in Malawi. In response to food crises in 2002 and 2005 caused by flooding and drought, its government established a FISP鈥攁 farm input subsidy program鈥攖o provide poor farmers with industrial high-yield seeds and fertilizers. Maize production increased (although so did rain), and Malawi was even able to export food. On closer inspection, writes Wise, 鈥渉unger indicators showed little improvement, if any. But the subsidies were undeniably a boon to multinational seed and fertilizer companies.鈥� Looking closer, he concludes that 鈥淚 saw Malawi鈥檚 FISP creating a market for seeds and fertilizers where one barely existed. In the process, they were promoting a long-term transition away from sustainable practices of seed-saving, inter-cropping, and using compost for fertilizer.鈥�

That transition is bolstered by public-private partnerships that require participating African governments to adopt agribusiness-friendly laws and policies. But Americans don鈥檛 have to travel far afield to see Big Ag wielding huge economic and political power, as Wise describes in his chapter about Iowa, where government support led to the 鈥渃ornification鈥� of the state: corn feeds factory farms that feed toxic runoff into rivers and eventually, the Gulf of Mexico. Along the way, an army of lobbyists ensure government can鈥檛 or won鈥檛 impose adequate pollution controls. It鈥檚 hardly a model to export to the rest of the world, especially at a time of impending climate crisis, but cultural hubris dies hard.

So does myth and hyperbole, Wise says. 鈥淧robably the most misleading piece of it is that it鈥檚 the seeds and the fertilizer that are the solution. The newest research says it鈥檚 irrigation. One study said irrigation accounted for 50% of all the yield increases in India during the Green Revolution period. And that鈥檚 really notable because they鈥檙e not doing that in Africa. Typical of a tech guy like Gates, Green Revolution 2.0 included new features, but it left out some of the most important old ones, like an update to your phone that destroys one of the things that you love. That鈥檚 a huge issue, because with climate change, sustainable gravity-fed small scale irrigation is a lifesaver.鈥�

Farmers in Lobi, Central Malawi, cheer their success with agroecological farming.

But there鈥檚 hope to be found in another strategy proven to improve the lot of small-scale famers, says Wise鈥攁nd that is organizing. In Eating Tomorrow, he describes visiting Ngolowindo Horticultural Cooperative Society in Malawi, where farmers share the expense of running an irrigation system. Built by the government for just $2,000, it enables 140 farmers on just 42 acres to grow vegetables year-round. And in Marracuene, Mozambique, he sees what a 7,000-member alliance of women-led farmer co-ops is achieving with intercropping and saving seeds for climate resilience.

Research shows that smallholder farmers are where economic development starts, so it鈥檚 only fair that they have a determining voice in their food system. Million Belay is working on it. He鈥檚 coordinator for the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, a network of organizations from 50 countries that includes smallholders, pastoralists, hunter/gatherers, Indigenous people, faith institutions, women, youth, NGOS, and environmentalists from across Africa. Its focus is on self-determination and the use of agroecology, defined as farming systems that recognize the ecology of food systems and work in harmony with nature. 鈥淚n many ways,鈥� states an 鈥渁groecology is the antithesis of current conventional, corporate driven monoculture based agriculture systems.鈥�

Standing with Wise in front of the display at the Gates Foundation, Belay examined one of those blocks presenting a solution to poverty: 鈥淭he AGRA soil health program restores healthy soil in Africa by teaching farmers about fertilizers and sustainable land use practices.鈥� Pointing to the message, Belay said quietly: 鈥淭hat is not accurate.鈥� I asked him what farmers themselves told him about AGRA programs.

鈥淥ne, their soil is dying. That unless you give it artificial fertilizer, it won鈥檛 give you anything. Second, they are not happy with the loss of their seeds. They are losing the traditional seeds and the diversity very fast. And third, that in some places, they are in conflict with their government over seeds and the use of artificial fertilizer. At the end of the day, it鈥檚 a zero sum game with the changing climate. These seeds and artificial fertilizer need a lot of water. So it鈥檚 becoming a risky business.鈥�

I asked Belay AFSA was promoting, and what people in the United States could do to support them. 鈥淎 big transition should be focused on soil. Focus on feeding the soil. This should be not a green revolution, but a brown revolution. That would be a climate adaptation and mitigation impact.鈥� Currently, he says, less than 3% of funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are allocated for agroecology.

鈥淲e know much of the Gates funding goes to researchers and universities in the U.S., instead of going into Africa. So it would be good to pressure the U.S. government and philanthropic bodies to spend on something sustainable, which is agroecology. The biggest authority in agriculture, the UNFAO [the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization], is saying that agroecology is the way. It鈥檚 very clear that climate change is a reality. It鈥檚 becoming an emergency. We need to act on the cheapest, easiest solutions, like feeding the soil.鈥�

When asked that same question鈥攚hat should we in the United States do?鈥擶ise points to political process and the sort of agriculture policies that would be part of the Green New Deal. 鈥淲e need to change the incentives for agriculture so that carbon sequestration is rewarded, perennial crops are favored, and processes that reduce soil erosion instead of cause it are a priority.鈥�

The message is that changing how we grow food in Iowa is connected to changing what we promote in Africa. Legislators should pay attention to Eating Tomorrow鈥攂oth the imperative and the book. And it might help to get copies, along with some hard questions, behind those walls at the Gates Foundation.

Valerie Schloredt is the former books editor at 大象传媒, where she led print and online coverage of literature, media, and film, with a focus on social change movements. Valerie worked for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in London for seven years, has followed the police reform process in Seattle as a citizen activist since 2010, and continues to monitor developments in both London and Seattle. She lives in Seattle, and speaks English.