30.8 C
Lagos
Friday, January 31, 2025
Home Blog Page 2122

African nations accused of undermining food sovereignty

0

African governments have been accused of being complacent about the “covert” activities of the biotechnology industry to undermine food sovereignty on the continent.

According to participants at a workshop held in Abuja, the policy frameworks for biotechnology in most African countries are either non-existent, weak or subject to manipulation by multinational corporations promoting genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and acting in alliance with some research institutes.

Nnimmo Bassey, Chairman of ERA

Participants at the event organised by the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) in collaboration with the African Biodiversity Network (ABN), African Center for Biosafety, EcoNexus and the Third World Network declared that the much-touted benefits of GMOs, when critically analysed, are found to be myths.

They pointed out that, in 2008, over 400 scientists, 30 governments from developed and developing countries and 30 civil society organisations, concluded work under the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The report observed that modern biotechnology would have very limited contribution to the feeding of the world in the foreseeable future, they said.

At the workshop titled “Biosafety Regulations and Experience Sharing”, the participants warned that the production of GMOs is not only a threat to biosafety; it also poses a great threat to human and animal health as well as the environment.

“Promoters of GMO and their allies have deliberately ignored the importance and the peculiarities of African culture, environment and agriculture in their aggressive attempts to impose their products on Africa. Rather than African governments getting committed to promotion of agro-ecological agriculture practices, they have become tied to the apron-strings of speculators and neo-colonial powers whose objective is to exploit, subjugate and destroy food production systems on the African continent.”

They added that, contrary to the arguments peddled by modern biotechnology industry, there are few or no tangible successes stories on GMOs and Africa must not be used as ground for experimentation for unverified technologies.

They accused the Nigerian government of not taking into account the concerns of local farmers, critical stakeholders, citizens’ participation and engagement contrary to the provisions of the AU model law and the Cartagena Protocol in the formulation of the draft Biosafety Bill now waiting for the President’s signature.

Participants lamented that African farmers, especially women, lack adequate access to land and other resources necessary for agricultural production, a situation they say is further compounded by massive land grabs by multinationals corporations for agro-fuels production and other capitalist interests.

“There is a dearth of funding and sustainable investment from African governments for research and development in agro-ecological practices of improving agriculture in Africa. There is inadequate information and awareness on food sovereignty issues in the media thus shutting out critical stakeholders, thereby deepening public ignorance and inhibiting contributions to solutions,” noted the participants.

They, therefore, called on African governments to address the hunger question on the continent by prioritisation of agro-ecological agriculture systems over corporate models that promote inequalities.

They likewise underlined the need for a local and continental paradigm-shift towards food sovereignty based on local contextual considerations, promotion of small-scale farmers, pastoralists and fisher-folk which, they stressed, have defined agro-ecological agriculture based on human rights and sustainable natural resource management.

Furthermore, African governments were urged to put in place adequate regulatory frameworks for monitoring compliance.

“African governments should adequately address the gender insensitivity in agriculture with particular emphasis on access to land and other resources. This is because women are widely acknowledged as pillars in African agricultural practice and sustenance.”

By Michael Simire

States urged to embrace REDD

0

National Coordinator, the Nigeria Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD ) Programme, Salisu Dahiru, has called on state governments in Nigeria to embrace the initiative so as to mitigate the effects of climate change, protect ecosystems, develop communities and reduce poverty.

Salisu Dahiru
Salisu Dahiru, National REDD Programme Coordinator

Salisu, who announced that implementation of the Nigerian UN-REDD pilot scheme in Cross River State would commence soon, said without reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, it will not be possible to reach the 2⁰C temperature goal, stressing that carbon emissions from forests contributes about 20 per cent of the total emissions.

In a recent presentation titled: “Approaches to REDD for climate change including co-benefits for Lagos State,” he said the REDD Readiness Document provides a strategy for expanding the scope of REDD to other states of the nation including Lagos. He describes the scheme, which is a mechanism for slowing down global warming, as a critical factor in any climate change agreement.

Correcting the impression that Lagos State is not a forest producing state, but carbon producing one, he noted that the two main vegetation types of the state – swamp forest, (including mangroves) and dry lowland rain forest – are suitable for the REDD project.

He listed some of the benefits of the project to include: resilience to climate change, improved community livelihoods, revenues and ecosystem services.

“REDD is a collaborative partnership among the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),” he said.

“The main objective of REDD is to support and provide incentives to tropical developing countries for the protection and conservation of their standing natural forests and simultaneously contribute to mitigating climate change and promote sustainable livelihoods for forest dependent communities.”

Salisu further urged states to join the REDD initiative and integrate it into the climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. Besides, he challenged the states to institutionalise REDD within climate change agenda, promote private sector investments in the programme and scale up consultations.

On the implementation of the Cross River State project, he explained that what “is left is for the parties involved – the Minister of Environment, Cross River State Governor and the UN agencies – is to put pen to paper, so that they can draw the approved money down.”

Sharing a perspective on the Cross River State REDD project, Chairman of the state Forestry Commission and Head, REDD Cross River State, Odigha Odigha, represented by Arikpo Arikpo, a Commissioner in the Commission, said forest is the main asset of Cross River State.

He noted that in 2007 and 2008, logging of forest wood in the state reached a crisis level until the government placed a ban on it. He explained that an environmental summit was held in 2008 and key resolutions made, including the removal of revenue targets from timber exploitation and two year moratorium on logging.

Arikpo said implementation of the resolutions began in 2008, part of which he noted include the shift from timber concession to carbon concession. According to him, for any state to fully engage in REDD, there must be the political will as demonstrated by the state governor, Senator Liyel Imoke.

On what is require to engage in REDD, he said: “An in-depth investigation of vulnerabilities and adaptations strategies for rural communities to climate change.

“Our understanding is that although such in-depth investigation has become central to climate science, policy and practice, our capacity to conduct such vulnerability and adaptation assessments is still very limited. Through an appropriate combination of policy, technology and external funding, a low carbon economy is possible in Cross River State.”

By Michael Simire

×