Connect with us

FARM NEWS

How the Gates Foundation is driving the food system, in the wrong direction

Published

on

Gates: the new king of the global food system?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly US$6 billion over the past 17 years trying to improve agriculture, mainly in Africa. This is a lot of money for an underfunded sector, and, as such, carries great weight.

To better understand how the Gates Foundation is shaping the global agriculture agenda, GRAIN analysed all the food and agriculture grants the foundation has made up until 2020.

We found that, while the Foundation’s grants focus on African farmers, the vast majority of its funding goes to groups in North America and Europe.

The grants are also heavily skewed to technologies developed by research centres and corporations in the North for poor farmers in the South, completely ignoring the knowledge, technologies and biodiversity that these farmers already possess.

Also, despite the Foundation’s focus on techno-fixes, much of its grants are given to groups that lobby on behalf of industrial farming and undermine alternatives. This is bad for African farmers and bad for the planet. It is time to pull the plug on the Gates’ outsized influence over global agriculture.

In 2014 GRAIN published a detailed breakdown of the grants made by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote agricultural development in Africa and other parts of the world.1 Our main conclusion then was that the vast majority of those grants were channelled to groups in the US and Europe, not Africa nor other parts of the global South.

The funding overwhelmingly went to research institutes rather than farmers. They were also mainly directed at shaping policies to support industrial farming, not smallholders.

Much has happened since then. For starters, Bill and Melinda Gates announced their divorce in May this year, leaving the future of the Foundation and its grant-making in doubt. The news came as Bill Gates himself came under fire for supporting Big Pharma’s patent monopoly on COVID-19 vaccines, for effectively preventing people’s access across much of the world, and for how he treats – or mistreats – women.2 The Foundation’s agenda with agriculture has also been coming under increased scrutiny.

A 2020 report from Tufts University concluded that its work in Africa completely failed to meet the objectives that it had set itself.3 The African Centre for Biodiversity published a string of reports denouncing the Gates Foundation for pushing GMOs and other harmful technologies onto Africa.4

Amongst all this, the US Right to Know collective started a “Bill Gates Food Tracker” to monitor the multiple initiatives that Gates is involved in to reshape the global food system.5

GRAIN wondered whether the Gates Foundation had been receptive to the criticism of its food and agriculture funding. So we set out to update our 2014 report, downloaded the Foundation’s publicly available grant records and created a database of all of the Foundation’s grants in the area of food and agriculture from 2003 to 2020 – almost two decades worth of grant-making.6

The results are sobering. From 2003 to 2020 the Foundation dished out a total of 1130 grants for food and agriculture, worth nearly $US6 billion of which almost US$5 billion is supposed to service Africa.

There was no shift to try and reach groups in Africa directly, no refocusing away from the narrow technological approach, and no moves to embrace a more holistic and inclusive policy agenda.

Of course, the Gates Foundation is about much more than just making grants. The Foundation’s Trust Fund, which manages the Foundation’s endowment, has big investments in food and agribusiness companies, buys up farmland, and has equity investments in many financial companies around the world.7

These, and other activities of Gates in the area of food and agriculture, are illustrated in the infographic that accompanies this report.8

 

 

Infographic by A Growing Culture . For a more in-depth look at each category, visit our Instagram page
The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North

Graph 1 and Table 1 provide an overall picture of GRAIN’s research results. Almost half of the Foundation’s grants for agriculture went to four big groupings: the global agriculture research network of the Consortium Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA – set up in 2006 by the Gates Foundation itself together with the Rockefeller Foundation), the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF – another technology centre pushing Green Revolution technology and GMOs into Africa) and a number of international organisations (World Bank, UN agencies, etc.).

The other half ended up with hundreds of research, development and policy organisations across the world. The Gates Foundation claims that 80% of their grants are meant to serve African farmers. But of the funding to these hundreds of organisations a staggering 82% was channelled to groups based in North America and Europe while less than 10% went to Africa-based groups.

The breakdown of the NGOs that the Gates Foundation funds is even worse. Almost 90% of this funding goes to groups in North American and Europe whilst just 5% is directly channelled to African NGOs. The Gates Foundation seems to have very little trust in African organisations serving African farmers.

Not that we would want the Gates Foundation to just send more of its grants directly to Africa if it comes with the same corporate industrial farming agenda. But it illustrates the point of where the priorities of the Foundation lie.

For contrast, Oxfam spends over half of all its funding directly in Africa, and over a third in Asia and Latin America, a lot of it through local NGOs in these regions.9

The Gates Foundation gives to scientists, not farmers

As can be seen in Graph 2, the single biggest recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the CGIAR- a consortium of 15 international research centres launched in the 1960s and 70s to promote the Green Revolution with new seeds, fertilisers and chemical inputs.

The Gates Foundation has given CGIAR centres US$1.4 billion since 2003. Another priority for the Gates Foundation in its funding is to support research at universities and national research centres. Again, the vast majority of the Gates’ grants go to universities and research centres in North America and Europe. Together, all this research gets almost half (47%) of the Gates Foundation’s funding.

The Gates Foundation’s support for Green Revolution-style research extends beyond the scientists. One of the most significant recipients of Gates Foundation funding is a high-profile advocacy organisation called the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations launched AGRA in 2006 as a “farmer-centered” and “African-led” institution.

The reality is anything but. AGRA implements a top-down Green Revolution agenda with the main focus being to get new seeds and chemicals developed by Gates funded research centres and corporations into the hands of African farmers.

AGRA establishes, funds, coordinates and promotes networks of pesticide and seed companies and public agencies to sell and supply agriculture inputs to farmers across Africa. It also actively lobbies African governments to implement policies that favour seed and pesticide companies, such as patents on seeds or regulations that allow for GMOs.

The Gates Foundation has given AGRA a whopping US$638 million since 2006, covering almost two thirds of its overall budget. But AGRA’s results are underwhelming to say the least.

In the countries where AGRA is active, yields of staple crops increased only 18% over the past 12 years- far short of AGRA’s goal of doubling yields. Meanwhile, undernourishment (as measured by the FAO) increased by 30% in those countries.10

Instead of acknowledging that their data shows a complete failure to achieve their objectives and changing their approach accordingly, Bill and Melinda are doubling down. In early 2020 they launched their own new research institute called “Gates Ag One”.

This enterprise claims to speed up the development of new seeds and chemicals and get them to farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia more quickly.11 Where will the institute be based? Not in Ethiopia or Sri Lanka but in St. Louis, USA, home of Monsanto and other GMO and pesticide giants.

The Gates Foundation buys political influence

In many subtle and not so subtle ways the Gates Foundation grants are used to push policy makers to implement its top-down industrial farming agenda.

 

Gates at the 2006 World Economic Forum advising policy makers.

One recent example is the 2021 “High-Level Dialogue on Feeding Africa” that was held on 29-30 April this year.12 This forum, funded by the Gates Foundation, and organised by a number of Gates Foundation grantees such as the African Development Bank, CGIAR and AGRA, was meant to launch a policy and funding agenda to further push the Green Revolution into Africa.

The event attracted no less than 18 African heads of state and several other high-profile personalities. But, most remarkable of all, is that of all the international organisations with activities in Africa on the long speakers list of the dialogue, virtually all are Gates grantees.

The forum concluded with a commitment to double agricultural productivity, something AGRA and the Gates Foundation have been promising and failing to deliver for the last decade and a half.

Of course, AGRA itself is also actively pushing the African policy agenda. AGRA is among the key conveners of the annual Africa Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) which calls itself the world’s premier forum for African agriculture and has been convening annual meetings for the past decade.

Partners include some of the main global agrochemical corporations, such as Bayer, Corteva and Yara, and of course the Gates Foundation itself. Unsurprisingly, its agenda is clearly oriented to push government policies towards more chemical inputs, fertilisers and hybrid seeds.

On its website, AGRF has a special section it calls the Agribusiness deal room, which “has directly facilitated over 400 companies with targeted investor matchmaking and hosted more than 800 companies to explore networking opportunities”.13 This is clearly market matchmaking serving corporate interests, not farmers.

While most of the Gates grants are aimed at pushing technological solutions, many are also oriented towards policy change. A total of 45 grants address policy or policy makers. For example, Iowa State University got a grant to support implementation of policy changes aimed at increasing the supply of new seeds to farmers in Africa.

The World Economic Forum received a grant to support a “policy platform for ag innovation and value chain development”, whilst the African Centre for Economic Transformation got a grant to promote agricultural transformation in Africa aimed at policy reforms. In addition, the Foundation is actively involved in bankrolling the “Enabling the Business of Agriculture” project, implemented by the World Bank, amongst many other initiatives.14

Gates’ enthusiasm for GMOs is made clear through its grant database. Michigan State University received US$13 million to create a centre in Africa that provides training for African policy makers on how to use and promote biotechnology. The African Seed Trade Association got a grant to increase farmers’ awareness “of the benefits of replacing their older varieties of crops with newer seed”.

AATF got US$32 million to increase awareness on the benefits of agricultural biotechnology and another US$27 million to fund the approval and commercialization GMO maize in at least four African countries.

So the Gates Foundation is not only funding public acceptance of GMOs, it is also directly funding the approval and commercialisation of GMOs in Africa.

Gates grantees are clearly carrying the Gates agenda and influencing global agricultural policy. In just over a decade, the Gates brainchild in Africa, AGRA, has managed to manoeuvre itself from nowhere right into the centre of agricultural policy discussions across the continent.

Similarly, while resistance to GMOs in Africa remains high, the AATF is managing to get legislation adopted to accept GMOs, as seen most recently in Ghana.

It’s just as important to look at who the Gates Foundation is supporting as who they are not supporting; African farmers.

The Foundation provides zero funding to support farmer seed systems, which supply 80 to 90% of all the seeds used in Africa. Instead, it provides a lot of funds to initiatives that destroy them.

Furthermore, the Gates Foundation props up biofortification as a solution to malnutrition, taking funds and attention away from much more practical and culturally appropriate efforts to improve nutrition by enhancing on-farm biodiversity and people’s access to it.15 Over the last decade or so, the Gates Foundation has given US$73 million to biofortification initiatives that essentially seek to artificially pack nutrients into single crop commodities.

Then, of course, there is Bill Gates himself. Sitting down with heads of state, policy makers and business leaders, Gates tries to convince them that his view of the world is the one to go after. The world has gotten used to pictures of him shaking hands or sitting shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the world.

Indeed, many of those leaders seem very eager to be in these pictures and heed his advice. The most recent display of this was at Joe Biden’s virtual “Leaders Summit on Climate” where Gates shared his vision on how to fight the climate crisis.16

His recipe to tackle the climate crisis is very similar and equally dangerous to how he wants to feed the world: develop new technologies, trust the market, and put in place policies so that corporations can make it all happen faster.17

Gates clearly isn’t listening to or learning from the people on the ground. So why should anyone listen to him? Rather than being listened to, Gates and his top down corporate technology agenda must be resisted and stopped in its tracks.

GRAIN wishes to thank Camila Oda and María Teresa Montecinos for their help in compiling the database and to ‘A Growing Culture’ for their feedback on the draft and their work on the infographic.

Click here and here to consult all the food and agriculture grants of the Gates Foundation

Graph 1

Graph 2
Table 1: Gates Foundation agricultural grants by type of grantee, 2003-2021
Agency
$US million
Main recipients
CGIAR
1,373
The CGIAR is a consortium of 15 international research centres set up to promote the Green Revolution across the world. Gates is now amongst its major donors. Main recipients include: IFPRI ($223 million), CIMMYT ($346m), IRRI ($197m), ICRISAT ($151m), IITA ($166m), ILRI ($74m), CIP ($91m), and others. Most of the grants are in the form of project support to each of the centres, and many of them are focusing on developing new crop varieties.
AGRA
638
A total of 20 grants for core support and AGRA’s main issue areas: seeds, soils, markets, and lobbying African governments to change policies and legislation.
Int’l orgs (UN, World Bank, etc.)
601
World Bank – IBRD ($192m); World Food Programme (WFP) ($99m); UNDP ($54m.); FAO ($88m.) UN Foundation ($76m). The lion’s share of the grants to the World Bank are to promote public and private sector investment in agriculture ($70m), WFP is supported to improve market opportunities for small farmers, UNDP to establish rural agro-enterprises in West Africa, and the support to FAO is mostly for statistical and policy work.
AATF
170
AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation) is a blatantly pro-GMO pro-corporate research outfit based in Nairobi. The bulk of the Gates’ support is to develop GMO drought-resistant maize, a project that has already miserably failed according to many. But it also gets support to raise “awareness on agricultural biotechnology for improved understanding and appreciation”, and to get legislation approved for allowing GMOs in African countries.
Universities & National Research Centres
1,393
Over three quarters of all Gates’ funding to universities and research centres goes to institutions in the US and Europe, such as Cornell, Michigan and Harvard in the US, and Cambridge and Greenwich Universities in the UK, amongst many others. The work supported is a mix of basic agronomic, breeding and molecular research, as well as policy research. A lot of it includes genetic engineering. Michigan State University, for example, got $13m to help African policy-makers “to make informed decisions on how to use biotechnology”.
Although most of the Foundation’s grants are supposed to benefit Africa, barely 11% of its grants to universities and research centres go directly to African universities and research institutions ($147m in total, of which $30m for the Uganda based Regional University Forum set up by the Rockefeller Foundation).
Service delivery NGOs
1,446
The Gates Foundation sees these as agents to implement its work on the ground. They include both large development NGOs and foundations, and the activities supported tend to have a strong technology development angle or focus on policy and education work in line with the Foundation’s philosophy. A whopping 70% of these grants end up with US-based beneficiaries, and another 19% in Europe. African NGOs get 4% of the NGO grants ($73m total, $36m of which goes to groups in South Africa, and another $13m for “Farm Concern International”- an NGO based in Nairobi with the mission of building “market-led business models” for small farmers).
Corporations
244
A relatively minor share of Gates’ funding goes directly to the corporate sector. Most of the grants are for specific technologies developed by the corporations in question. Major grantees include the World Cocoa Foundation ($31m), a corporate outfit representing the world’s major food and cocoa processors, for improving marketing and production efficiency, and Zoetis (a Belgium based veterinary transnational – $14m) for getting veterinary products to farmers.
Total
5,865
Table 2: Gates Foundation agricultural grant recipients, top 10 countries 2003-2021
(Excludes grants to CGIAR, AGRA, AATF and International organisations)
Country
$US million
Main recipients
USA
1,657
The USA is by far the largest recipient country of Gates agricultural grants meant to benefit farmers in poor countries: $1,657 million dished out in over 400 grants. Recipients include US universities and research institutions to produce crop varieties and biotechnology research for farmers in Africa (e.g. Cornell University, a whopping $212m in 26 grants), big NGO projects mostly oriented to develop technology and markets (e.g. Heifer, $51m, to increase cow productivity and Technoserve Inc., $51m, to push new technologies), and several policy and capacity building projects to push the foundation’s agenda in Africa and elsewhere.
UK
466
A total of 81 grants with a focus on research such as for the University of Greenwich to work on pests and diseases in cassava and other crops (10 grants totalling $73m), and for the Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (9 grants totalling $169m) to produce livestock medicines and vaccines sold by the private sector to African farmers.
Germany
154
8 grants for the German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ) to develop supply chains for African cashew and rice farmers and other projects ($57m), and another three grants for the German Investment Corporation to work on African cotton and coffee farming ($47m), amongst others.
India
98
Total of 33 grants to a variety of grantees including three grants to PRADAN ($34m for women farmers training), and three grants to BAIF ($16m) to give farmers access to the latest livestock breeding technologies.
Netherlands
95
Mostly for five grants to the Wageningen University for agronomic research on grain legumes, supporting digital farming and other projects ($57m).
Canada
74
A total of 20 grants mostly towards universities to ensure adoption of new technologies, develop commercial cassava seed supply chains in Tanzania, and to produce vaccines for livestock diseases, amongst other programmes.
Australia
61
A total of 24 grants mostly to universities and research centres (including $30 million for the University of Queensland) to develop sorghum and cowpea hybrids for Africa, and provide genetically improved cattle, amongst other programmes.
China
48
Mostly for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (two grants totalling $33 million) to develop new rice varieties for farmers across the world.
Uganda
46
Mostly for RUFORUM (two grants totalling over $30 million to support agricultural research universities in the region). RUFORUM was established as a programme of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1992 and became an independent Regional University Forum in 2004.
Kenya
43
Grants for Farm Concern International to create market-oriented value chains for a number of crops, and to a number of agribusiness companies active in the region to do the same.
Total top 10
2,742
$US2.7 billion, or almost half of all agriculture funding from Gates went to grantees in these 10 countries: over 90% to countries in the North.
1 GRAIN, “How does the Gates Foundation spend its money to feed the world?”, Nov 2014. https://grain.org/e/5064
2 See: Luke Savage “Bill Gates Chooses Corporate Patent Rights Over Human Lives” In Jacobin, 2021. https://jacobinmag.com/2021/04/bill-gates-vaccines-intellectual-property-covid-patents, and: Tim Schwab, “The Fall of the House of Gates?”, in The Nation, May 2021, https://www.thenation.com/article/society/gates-me-too-divorce/
3 Timothy A. Wise, “Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa”, Tufts University, July 2020. https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/files/2020/07/20-01_Wise_FailureToYield.pdf
6 The original Gates database is available from their website: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants. The GRAIN database which includes a grouping of different types of grantees can be downloaded from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ItZGNKANeY00Rv-LRxotRVjStoSXyor/view?usp=sharing and
7 See also: GRAIN, “Barbarians at the barn: private equity sinks its teeth into agriculture”, 2020, https://grain.org/e/6533
8 For a more in-depth look at each category, visit GRAIN’s Instagram pagehttps://www.instagram.com/grain_org/
10 Timothy A. Wise, “Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” Tufts University, July 2020. https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/files/2020/07/20-01_Wise_FailureToYield.pdf
11 See: “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Statement on Creation of Nonprofit Agricultural Research Institute”, Seattle, January 21, 2020. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2020/01/gates-foundation-statement-on-creation-of-nonprofit-agricultural-research-institute
15 GRAIN, “Biofortified crops or biodiversity? The fight for genuine solutions to malnutrition is on,” 4 June 2019: https://grain.org/e/6246

Original Source: Grain.org

FARM NEWS

Rising demand for cow dung pushes prices up

Published

on

Several years ago, cow dung was seen as simply animal excreta among cattle keepers, who did not value it as an organic source of manure. Some farmers could give it away as they heavily relied on chemical fertilisers to improve yields. Only a few livestock farmers who integrate cattle rearing with growing bananas were using it in their plantations as organic fertiliser.

However, today, this durable natural fertiliser has become a valuable resource with more Ugandans venturing into coffee farming where it (cow dung) complements artificial fertilisers to achieve better yields.

Today, many coffee farmers use cow dung, especially for soil preparation and fertility enhancement, alongside other organic materials.

This practice, which is gaining traction, helps to create a nutrient-rich environment that supports the growth of coffee plants. In Mpigi District, one coffee farmer, Mr Moses Ssendiwala is among a growing number of farmers who have embraced the use of animal manure as a cornerstone of their farming system.

From pig and goat dung to cattle manure, he believes organic fertilisers are helping farmers build healthier soils while reducing dependence on costly chemical inputs.

Cow dung is rich in minerals and nutrients and a good source of manure. Photo | Michael J Ssali

Standing in his coffee plantation in Bulerejje Parish, Muduuma Sub-county, Mr Ssendiwala points to the dark, fertile soil beneath his coffee trees as evidence of years of organic soil management.

“The strength and performance of a coffee plantation begins with the soil. When the soil is healthy, the coffee trees become stronger and more productive,” he told Monitor on Wednesday.

For Mr Ssendiwala, the journey towards organic farming was driven by concerns about declining soil quality and increasing production costs. Like many farmers, he once depended heavily on inorganic fertilisers.

However, over time, he noticed that maintaining soil fertility required increasingly higher quantities of chemical inputs. “I realised that chemicals alone could not sustain the soil for many years. Organic manure improves the soil structure and continues benefiting the crops for a long time,” he added.

Today, his coffee plantation depends largely on manure collected from pigs, goats and other livestock raised on the farm. According to him, goat manure is particularly valuable because of its long-lasting impact on soil fertility.

“Goat manure remains active in the soil for many years and continues nourishing plants. It is one of the best organic fertilisers a coffee farmer can use,” he said.

He added that pig manure is equally beneficial because it decomposes quickly and releases nutrients needed by crops. However, he cautions that farmers must apply it carefully. “If too much pig manure is applied in one area, it can damage crops. Farmers should use the correct quantities and ensure proper decomposition before application,” he explained.

One of the key lessons from Mr Ssendiwala’s farming model is the importance of integrating livestock and crop enterprises. His farm combines coffee, bananas and livestock production, creating a cycle in which waste from one enterprise becomes an input for another. Animal manure collected from pigsties and livestock shelters is processed and applied to coffee and banana gardens, reducing expenditure on purchased fertilisers.

Mr Ssendiwala estimates that manure from 10 pigs can adequately support one acre of farmland, while larger piggery enterprises can generate enough manure for extensive coffee plantations.

“If someone keeps 100 pigs on a 10-acre farm, there may be little need to buy manure from outside,” he said. The integrated approach is becoming increasingly popular among farmers seeking to lower production costs while improving environmental sustainability.

Agricultural experts say combining livestock and crop farming helps recycle nutrients, minimise waste and improve overall farm productivity. But in addition to manure, Mr Ssendiwala applies mulch around coffee trees to conserve soil moisture and suppress weed growth.

The combination of manure and mulching has helped his plantation remain productive even during periods of prolonged dry weather.

“When moisture is retained in the soil, coffee trees continue growing well even when rainfall reduces,” he said. Farmers in several coffee-growing districts report similar experiences. Many say trees grown in soils enriched with organic manure develop stronger root systems and maintain healthier foliage than those grown in depleted soils.

Various studies also report that earthworms are able to convert barren land into fertile land and increase the agriculture output. PHOTO | LOMINDA AFEDRARU

Agronomists explain that organic manure supports beneficial microorganisms that improve nutrient availability and overall soil biological activity. These organisms play a critical role in maintaining healthy ecosystems that support crop growth. Over the past few years, high coffee prices have encouraged thousands of farmers to establish new plantations or expand existing gardens.

As a result, manure has become an increasingly valuable commodity. In livestock-keeping areas, traders now purchase truckloads of cow dung and transport them to coffee-growing districts where demand remains high throughout the year. What was once considered waste is now generating additional income for livestock farmers.

Many cattle keepers say manure sales have become an important supplementary enterprise.

“People used to collect manure for free. Today, buyers come looking for it and are willing to pay cash,” Mr Moses Kafeero, a livestock farmer at Kasubikamu Cell, Bongole Ward in Buwama Town Council, said.

The demand typically rises during planting seasons and periods of prolonged dry spells when farmers seek to improve moisture retention in their gardens. But while organic manure offers numerous benefits, increasing demand has also pushed prices upwards.

A farmer picks coffee from a garden in Kyotera District in May 2024. PHOTO/MICHAEL KAKUMIRIZI

Coffee farmers who do not own livestock are often forced to purchase manure from external suppliers, adding to production costs. Mr John Ssekindi, a coffee farmer at Wassozi Cell, Nabusanke Ward in Kayabwe Town Council, said acquiring sufficient manure is exceedingly expensive.

“Buying the cow dung is one thing, but transporting it to the farm and paying labourers to apply it adds significant costs,” he said.

According to him, a two-acre coffee plantation may require several truckloads of well-decomposed manure depending on soil conditions and the age of the coffee trees. Despite these costs, many farmers continue investing in organic fertilisers because of the long-term benefits. They argue that healthier soils ultimately lead to improved yields and higher profits.

Mad rush for cow dung in Ankole 

Cow dung is becoming an unusual item that has recently attracted a lot of demand in the sub-region. In September 2024, Kiruhura District instructed its sub-county chiefs and town clerks to start collecting cow dung loading fees. The then chief administrative officer, Mr Charles Kiberu, argued that the move was intended to enhance local revenue.

“It is good that the Kiruhura leadership has identified this source of revenue, there are many lorries that are taking cow dung from the district. There is nothing special with taxing cow dung, we are doing this like we are doing with other identified sources of revenue like cattle loading,” Mr Kiberu said then.

In Mbarara City, Mr Vincent Mugabe, the city’s agricultural officer, said farmers are rushing for cow dung because it’s organic and convenient in application.

“Farmers are using cow dung, even goats and sheep droppings because they see it as purely organic. There are no chemicals, which at times they doubt of its possible negative effects to the soils. But it is also more convenient to apply than fertilisers that require lots of precautions like measurements and safety,” added Mr Mugabe.

But he warned that as farmers rush for cow dung they have to be cautious because the application of it randomly has negative effects on soils.

“With the increasing demand, extension workers need to come in and offer guidance because cow dung may affect the soil PH, also some cow dung has no nutrients required because it is mishandled at the source. For example, it should be covered as it decomposes to stop it from losing some nutrients like nitrogen,” advised Mr Mugabe.

Mr Suleiman Muhoozi , a farmer in Ibanda District, said animal droppings do not have the same prices, indicating that goat’s droppings are more expensive than for cows. He said a Forward truck of cow dung goes for Shs270,000, while an Elf tipper costs Shs170,000. For goat/sheep dung, it is Shs290,000(a Forward truck) and Shs200,000 for a (Elf tipper), he said.

Mr Muhoozi explained that these costs do not cover transportation, a farmer has to meet those costs separately. According to our findings, to have a truckload of cow dung delivered at your farm, one has to part with between Shs500,000 to Shs700,000 in Isingiro District, while in Mbarara, it costs Shs400, 000.

Agricultural experts such as Mr Valentine Ssekivuuvu, the Mpigi District senior agriculture officer, and Mr Emmanuel Mutebi Jjuuko, the Mpigi District agriculture officer, support this integrated approach. They say organic manure enhances soil structure, water retention and microbial activity, while inorganic fertilisers supply readily available nutrients required for rapid plant growth.

Goat dung versus cow dung

Among coffee farmers, discussions frequently arise about which type of manure offers the greatest benefits. Agronomists note that different manures possess varying nutrient compositions. Goat manure is generally regarded as nutrient-rich because of its relatively high concentrations of nitrogen and potassium. It is also less bulky and decomposes relatively quickly.

Cow dung, however, remains the most widely available organic fertiliser in Uganda. Its abundance makes it easier to obtain in large quantities, particularly in livestock-keeping areas. Agricultural extension officers say cow dung contributes substantial amounts of organic matter that improve soil texture and water-holding capacity.

“Each type of manure has strengths. The most important factor is ensuring that the manure is properly decomposed before application,” Mr Ssekivuuvu said.

With Uganda’s coffee industry continuing to expand, demand for sustainable soil fertility management practices is expected to grow. Government agencies, researchers and agricultural extension workers continue encouraging farmers to adopt methods such as composting, mulching and manure application. These practices are seen as critical for maintaining long-term productivity in coffee-growing regions.

For livestock farmers, the growing demand has created a new income stream. For coffee growers, it has become an important tool in the quest for sustainable productivity.

A farmer in his cabbage garden. Photo | File

While agriculture is the backbone of Uganda’s economy and employs more than 65 percent of Ugandans and feeds more than 80 percent of the country’s industries with raw materials, most farmers practice it without any training, something that has limited their opportunities of transiting from subsistence farming to large scale merchandised commercial agriculture.

Compiled by Al Mahdi Ssenkabirwa, Sadat Mbogo, Rajab Mukombozi & Jovita Kyarisiima

Source: monitor.co.ug

Continue Reading

FARM NEWS

Africa’s El Niño Economic Impact: $20B at Risk in 2026

Published

on

The Hidden Cost of a Pacific Ocean Anomaly: Why Africa Bears a Disproportionate Climate Burden

Every decade or so, a warming of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean quietly reshapes weather systems across the entire planet. For most advanced economies, the resulting shifts in rainfall and temperature are inconvenient at worst. For large parts of Africa, the same atmospheric disruption can unravel years of economic progress, push tens of millions of people into food insecurity, and force governments into a fiscal spiral that proves far harder to escape than the weather event itself.

This is the structural reality that makes the El Niño economic impact in Africa so consequential, and so poorly understood outside development finance circles. The 2026 episode now taking shape is not a distant weather forecast. It is a measurable, quantifiable economic risk that the African Development Bank (AfDB) has placed at the centre of its near-term policy warnings, with loss estimates ranging from $10 billion to $20 billion across the continent and GDP contractions of 1% to 2% in the hardest-hit nations.

To understand why those numbers carry such outsized consequences, it helps to first understand what makes African economies structurally different from other regions facing the same climatic event.

Why African Economies Convert Weather Into Economic Crises

The Architecture of Vulnerability

Rain-fed agriculture remains the foundation of food production across most of Sub-Saharan Africa. Unlike irrigated farming systems common in parts of Asia and the Americas, rain-fed systems carry no mechanical buffer against rainfall deficits. When rainfall fails, yields collapse almost immediately, and the effects radiate outward through household income, rural consumption, and national output.

The energy dimension adds a second layer of fragility that is often underappreciated. Several of Africa’s largest economies depend on hydropower for the majority of their electricity generation. Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo each rely heavily on reservoir-based hydroelectric capacity. When drought drains those reservoirs, electricity generation falls, load-shedding intensifies, manufacturing slows, and mining productivity drops.

A rainfall deficit in the Zambezi basin is not simply an agricultural problem. It is an industrial problem, an investment climate problem, and ultimately a fiscal problem. Furthermore, the energy transition challenges facing resource-dependent economies compound these vulnerabilities significantly.

Infrastructure deficits compound both dynamics. Roads, drainage systems, and irrigation networks in many African countries remain inadequate to absorb either prolonged drought or acute flooding. The same infrastructure gap that amplifies drought damage also amplifies flood damage, meaning El Niño’s geographically inverted impacts across the continent both translate into disproportionate economic harm.

El Niño’s Asymmetric Geography Across Africa

A critical but underappreciated feature of El Niño is that it does not impose a uniform shock across Africa. Its effects are almost geographically inverted between the continent’s sub-regions, which complicates both economic forecasting and policy response.

  • Southern Africa experiences drought, harvest contraction, livestock stress, and hydropower shortfalls during El Niño years
  • East Africa typically faces excess rainfall, flooding, infrastructure destruction, and population displacement
  • West Africa and the Sahel face secondary but real exposure through rainfall variability and commodity market disruptions
  • Fragile and conflict-affected states experience the same physical shocks but with far less institutional and fiscal capacity to absorb them

The 2023-2024 El Niño episode illustrated this geographic divergence with unusual severity. Southern African countries reported harvest losses exceeding 50% of annual production in the worst-affected areas, while East Africa simultaneously faced destructive flooding that damaged transport corridors and urban markets. According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Southern African impact was characterised as among the most severe in over a century.

Quantifying the 2026 Threat: What the Numbers Actually Mean

AfDB Loss Projections in Context

The AfDB’s estimate of $10 billion to $20 billion in aggregate economic losses deserves careful interpretation rather than simple citation. African economic growth is projected at 4.2% in 2026 and 4.4% in 2027, representing one of the continent’s more promising growth windows in recent years. A climate shock that strips 1% to 2% from the GDP of multiple countries simultaneously does not merely slow growth; it disrupts the compounding dynamic that allows development gains to build on each other over time.

A 2% GDP loss in a high-exposure economy is not a one-year setback. It triggers chain reactions across fiscal balances, debt servicing capacity, and social spending programmes that compress development gains accumulated over several years.

The AfDB has estimated that African agricultural producers could lose approximately $327 million to $330 million in income from the anticipated disruptions. The fisheries sector faces additional pressure, with rising sea temperatures and storm events projected to reduce productivity by 1% to 4%.

Sector Estimated Economic Impact Primary Driver
Agricultural producer income ~$327-$330 million in losses Drought-driven crop failure and flood damage
Maize prices 2%-20% increase in strong El Niño years Supply contraction in Southern Africa
Fisheries productivity 1%-4% reduction Sea temperature rise and storm disruption
GDP contraction (worst-affected countries) 1%-2% Multiple transmission channels
Aggregate continental losses $10B-$20B Combined agricultural, energy, and fiscal impacts

The 2026 Probability Assessment

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has assigned an 80% probability to El Niño developing between June and August 2026, with the likelihood of the event persisting through November approaching or exceeding 90%. The anticipated intensity is classified as moderate-to-strong. The WMO has explicitly noted that the term super El Niño, which circulates widely in public discourse, does not represent an official scientific classification and should not be used as a technical benchmark.

A moderate-to-strong event is sufficient to activate the full range of agricultural, hydrological, and fiscal transmission channels documented in previous episodes. The 2023-2024 episode, which serves as the most recent empirical reference point, demonstrated that even a single El Niño cycle can push 61 million people across Southern Africa alone into requiring humanitarian assistance.

The AfDB has scheduled a formal portfolio impact assessment for September 2026 to evaluate exposure across its active investment operations and identify necessary adjustments.

Five Transmission Channels: How Weather Becomes a Fiscal Crisis

Channel 1: Agricultural Output Collapse

Rain-fed farming systems that dominate food production across Sub-Saharan Africa have no mechanical buffer against rainfall deficits. Drought reduces yields, destroys livestock, and eliminates the seasonal income that rural households rely on for a significant portion of their annual consumption. Flooding in East Africa simultaneously destroys standing crops, degrades soil quality, and disrupts planting cycles for subsequent growing seasons.

Channel 2: Food Price Inflation and Urban Purchasing Power Erosion

As agricultural supply contracts, staple food prices rise. This dynamic disproportionately affects urban low-income households that spend the highest share of their income on food. Maize price increases of 2% to 20% in strong El Niño years have been documented across Southern African markets. Food inflation reduces real household incomes, suppresses consumer spending, and can contribute to social instability in urban centres already under economic pressure.

Channel 3: Hydropower Shortages and Industrial Disruption

Drought reduces reservoir levels, cutting electricity generation capacity and forcing load-shedding that affects manufacturing, mining, and services simultaneously. Businesses dependent on continuous power face higher operating costs as they switch to backup generation. The energy transition in mining and related industries is consequently further complicated by climate-driven energy instability. Persistent power instability deters investment and reduces the competitiveness of export-oriented industries.

Channel 4: Infrastructure Damage and Emergency Fiscal Pressure

Flooding in East Africa and storm events along coastal regions damage roads, bridges, drainage infrastructure, and urban markets. Reconstruction costs divert government capital budgets away from planned development expenditure. Emergency response requirements force fiscal reallocation that crowds out health, education, and productive infrastructure investment.

Channel 5: The Climate Finance Trap

Anthony Nyong, Director of the AfDB’s Climate Change and Green Growth Department, has identified a structural dynamic that explains why El Niño’s fiscal consequences often exceed its direct physical damage. When governments are forced to redirect pre-allocated development budgets toward disaster response, they erode the long-term fiscal architecture of planned growth.

Countries without adequate insurance instruments or contingency reserves face the hardest trade-offs between immediate relief and sustained development investment. This pattern compounds across multiple El Niño cycles, progressively narrowing fiscal space.

The Countries Facing the Greatest Exposure

A Regional Risk Framework

Southern Africa: Drought, Harvest Collapse, and Energy Shortfalls

Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, and Madagascar face the most consistent drought exposure during El Niño years. Hydropower dependency amplifies the economic impact beyond agriculture into energy and industrial sectors. The 2023-2024 episode produced harvest losses exceeding 50% of annual production in the worst-affected areas.

East Africa: Flooding, Infrastructure Destruction, and MSME Disruption

Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Uganda face elevated flood risk during El Niño years. Flooding damages transport networks, disrupts urban commerce, and creates displacement that reduces labour market participation. Micro, small, and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of urban economic activity across East Africa, face acute disruption from flooding and market closures.

Fragile and Conflict-Affected States: Compounded Vulnerability

The AfDB has specifically identified Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Burundi, and Nigeria as among the countries most exposed to the anticipated impacts. In fragile states, climate shocks interact with pre-existing governance deficits, displacement crises, and food insecurity to produce disproportionately severe outcomes. These countries also have the least fiscal capacity to self-finance recovery and the most constrained access to international capital markets.

Africa’s Climate Finance Gap: A Structural Inequity

The Numbers That Reveal a Systemic Failure

Financing Metric Figure
UN estimated annual climate finance need for developing countries by 2035 ~$365 billion
International public climate adaptation finance delivered in 2023 ~$26 billion
AfDB estimate of Africa’s climate financing need in 2026 ~$100 billion
Previous AfDB climate financing estimates for Africa ~$50 billion
UN CERF preventive mobilisation for highest-risk countries Up to $100 million

The gap between what is needed and what is being delivered is not a marginal shortfall. International public adaptation finance of $26 billion delivered in 2023 represents less than 7% of the $365 billion annual requirement projected for 2035. Africa’s estimated 2026 climate financing need of $100 billion represents a doubling of previous estimates, reflecting both escalating climate risk and the accumulated deficit of underinvestment in adaptation infrastructure.

Why Adaptation Financing Consistently Lags Behind Mitigation

A less commonly understood dynamic within climate finance is the persistent structural imbalance between mitigation spending and adaptation spending. Global climate finance flows have historically favoured mitigation projects, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, over adaptation projects, which build resilience to the climate change already locked in.

The reasons are partly financial. Mitigation projects such as solar farms and wind energy installations generate revenue streams, attract private co-investment, and can be structured for commercial returns. Adaptation investments such as flood barriers, drought-resistant crop varieties, and early warning systems generate economic value by preventing losses rather than creating new income streams.

This distinction makes adaptation harder to monetise and less attractive to private capital. However, the El Niño economic impact in Africa demonstrates precisely why sustained adaptation investment is essential. For a continent that contributes a small fraction of global emissions yet absorbs a disproportionate share of climate impacts, this imbalance represents a fundamental equity failure in the international climate finance architecture.

In addition, the growing importance of critical minerals and energy security means that climate disruptions increasingly threaten strategic supply chains that extend well beyond Africa’s own borders. Furthermore, renewable energy solutions designed to reduce hydropower dependency are increasingly being considered as a structural hedge against El Niño-driven energy instability.

Mechanisms Being Mobilised Ahead of the 2026 Peak

The AfDB is facilitating access to several international financing instruments for affected member states:

  1. Green Climate Fund targeting both adaptation and mitigation in vulnerable developing nations
  2. Adaptation Fund focused specifically on countries with the least capacity to self-finance resilience building
  3. Climate Investment Funds providing multi-donor capital for low-carbon and climate-resilient development
  4. Loss and Damage Mechanisms offering compensation for climate impacts beyond adaptive capacity
  5. UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) mobilising up to $100 million for preventive measures in the highest-risk countries

Embedding Climate Risk Into African Development Planning

The Case for Treating El Niño as a Fiscal Variable, Not an Exceptional Event

One of the least-discussed but most consequential shifts in African public finance management concerns how climate risk is categorised within government planning frameworks. Treating El Niño as a recurring fiscal variable rather than an unpredictable exceptional event changes everything from budget reserve requirements to debt sustainability assessments.

Countries that establish contingency reserves, parametric insurance instruments, and pre-arranged emergency credit lines are measurably better positioned to absorb climate shocks without derailing multi-year development trajectories. Parametric insurance, which triggers automatic payouts when pre-defined weather thresholds are crossed rather than requiring lengthy loss assessments, is particularly relevant for African economies because it delivers capital precisely when it is needed most.

Preparedness Investment as a Fiscal Efficiency Measure

Evidence from disaster risk economics consistently demonstrates that pre-event investment in preparedness generates substantially higher returns than post-event reconstruction spending. Irrigation infrastructure, drought-resistant crop varieties, early warning systems, and flood-resilient road construction each reduce the economic cost of El Niño events in ways that reconstruction spending cannot replicate after the fact.

For African governments, the structural challenge is financing preparedness during periods of fiscal constraint. This is precisely the window before an El Niño peak when investment would generate the greatest returns. Bridging this timing gap requires concessional pre-event financing that existing multilateral instruments have not consistently delivered at scale.

Research on El Niño’s economic devastation further confirms that the El Niño economic impact in Africa is not simply a humanitarian concern but a macroeconomic one, with effects that reverberate through fiscal systems for years after the weather event subsides. Consequently, the critical minerals demand picture is also affected, as climate disruptions to mining and energy infrastructure interrupt the supply of materials essential to the global clean energy transition.

The AfDB’s planned September 2026 portfolio review signals an institutional shift toward treating climate risk as a standing variable in development finance planning, rather than a one-off emergency to be managed after impact.

Key Statistics at a Glance

  • $10B-$20B in projected aggregate economic losses across Africa
  • 1%-2% GDP contraction in the hardest-hit countries, against a continental growth projection of 4.2% for 2026
  • $327-$330 million in estimated agricultural income losses for African producers
  • 61 million people required humanitarian assistance during the 2023-2024 El Niño across Southern Africa
  • 80% probability assigned by the WMO to El Niño developing between June and August 2026
  • $26 billion in international public adaptation finance delivered in 2023, against a $365 billion annual need by 2035
  • $100 billion in climate financing estimated as Africa’s requirement for 2026, double previous estimates
  • Up to $100 million being mobilised through the UN CERF for preventive measures in the highest-risk countries

Disclaimer: All loss projections, GDP impact estimates, and probability assessments referenced in this article reflect forward-looking forecasts from multilateral institutions including the AfDB and WMO. Actual outcomes will depend on the intensity, duration, and geographic distribution of any El Niño event, as well as the policy and financing responses mobilised before and during the episode. This article does not constitute financial or investment advice.

Want to Identify the ASX Mineral Discoveries Most Exposed to Shifting Commodity Dynamics?

Climate disruptions like El Niño directly affect the supply of critical minerals and energy resources that underpin global markets, making real-time discovery intelligence more valuable than ever. Discovery Alert’s proprietary Discovery IQ model instantly identifies significant ASX mineral discoveries, translating complex data into actionable insights — explore the historic returns major discoveries have generated and begin your 14-day free trial to stay ahead of market-moving announcements.

Source: discoveryalert.com.au

Continue Reading

FARM NEWS

Five counties roll out agroecology policies to boost climate resilience

Published

on

At least five counties have adopted agroecology policies as Kenya accelerates efforts to promote climate-resilient and sustainable farming.

Murang’a, Makueni, Nakuru, West Pokot and Kiambu have already developed county agroecology policies, while Trans Nzoia, Turkana, Laikipia, Kirinyaga and Machakos are drafting similar frameworks.

Stakeholders are urging more devolved governments to fast-track implementation to strengthen food security.

Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (Pelum) Kenya country coordinator Rosinah Mbeya said counties must move beyond policy development by allocating adequate budgets and implementing programmes that directly support farmers. She spoke during the Third Agroecology Symposium.

Mbeya said although agroecology is gaining momentum in Kenya, greater  political commitment, increased financing and faster implementation are needed to help farmers cope with climate change, rising production costs and declining soil health.

Kenya continues to grapple with multiple agricultural challenges, including climate change, emerging crop pests and diseases and increasing input costs driven by global economic disruptions.

“These challenges are making farming increasingly difficult, particularly for smallholder farmers. However, they also present an opportunity to transform our food systems and build farming systems that are more resilient and less dependent on external inputs,” Mbeya said.

Agriculture& Forestry

She described agroecology as an environmentally sustainable approach that restores ecosystems while improving agricultural productivity, conserving biodiversity and protecting human health and the environment.

Mbeya said the focus should now shift from developing strategies to implementing them through adequate funding and practical support for farmers.

“The discussion is no longer about developing strategies. It is now about implementation, budgeting and ensuring these policies benefit farmers on the ground,” she said.

Mbeya said agroecology continues to attract support from development partners, researchers and policymakers.

However, only a small proportion of Kenya’s estimated 7.5 million smallholder farmers practise agroecology through organised networks.

She said Pelum works with about 1.5 million farmers but said wider adoption is needed to transform the country’s food systems.

Farms& Ranches

Agriculture secretary in the State Department for Agriculture Peter Aoko said crop diversification remains one of the government’s key strategies for strengthening climate resilience and improving household nutrition.

“Different crops perform differently under different ecological conditions. Diversification ensures that if one crop fails because of weather or pests, another succeeds while also providing better nutrition,” he said.

Aoko said the government is strengthening farmers’ capacity through agricultural extension services and knowledge sharing while working with county governments to domesticate the National Agroecology Strategy.

He acknowledged that implementation has progressed slowly because agriculture is a devolved function but expressed confidence that momentum would increase as more counties adopt the strategy.

“Agroecology is about producing food sustainably while protecting the environment, particularly soil health. Without healthy soils, agricultural production cannot be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr Lisa Fuchs, a scientist with the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, said agroecology extends beyond environmentally friendly farming by integrating ecological sustainability, economic viability and social equity.

She said the approach promotes crop diversity, healthy soils, circular farming systems and locally adapted food production to improve food security and nutrition.

Agriculture& Forestry

Fuchs encouraged farmers to recognise the value of indigenous knowledge and work collectively to develop solutions suited to local conditions.

“Agroecology is a science, a practice and a movement. Farmers should organise, share knowledge, work with their neighbours and partner with government, researchers and other stakeholders to strengthen local food systems,” she said.

She said agricultural research institutions are increasingly embracing participatory approaches that involve farmers and communities in developing, testing and scaling innovations to ensure solutions respond to local needs.

Source: the-star.co.ke/

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates