A Deeper Dive into AGRA's Failures and Neocolonial Practices

This episode of "The Poor Proles Almanac" continues the hosts’ critique of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), building upon points raised in the previous episode. Elliott and Andy further dissect AGRA's operations, exposing its shortcomings in data reporting, its detrimental impact on local food systems, and its questionable ties to corporate interests. AGRA's Opaque Reporting Practices: The hosts highlight the lack of transparency in AGRA's operations, pointing to the organization's delayed and limited data reporting despite receiving billions in funding. They note that AGRA only began reporting data five years prior to this episode, which aired in 2023, meaning that it took 10 years for the organization to release any information about its impact. This lack of accountability is particularly concerning given AGRA's size and influence. The hosts further criticize the quality and scope of the data that AGRA eventually released. They point out that the data is heavily skewed towards corn, with only passing mentions of rice, despite AGRA's stated mission to improve overall food crop productivity. This narrow focus, the hosts argue, reflects AGRA's flawed approach of prioritizing a few commercial crops at the expense of diverse, locally adapted crops that are essential for food security and nutrition. Adding to these concerns, the hosts reveal that AGRA's evaluation only included data from six out of its eleven focus countries, omitting any information about the remaining five countries where it operates. Furthermore, AGRA no longer makes its outcome monitoring reports publicly available on its website, only releasing them after a public records request forced them to do so. This deliberate obfuscation of information, the hosts argue, raises serious questions about AGRA's legitimacy and the true impact of its work. AGRA's Harmful Impact on African Food Systems: The hosts argue that AGRA's model, which promotes the adoption of expensive commercial seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, has actually harmed African food systems. They cite studies that show little to no benefit to farmer incomes or food security. Some farmers even reported a decline in their economic well-being as the costs of these inputs drove them into debt, while yields did not increase enough to offset these expenses. The hosts also highlight the negative nutritional consequences of AGRA's approach, noting reports of declining nutrition due to reduced crop diversity. Challenging AGRA's Narrative of Empowering Farmers: The hosts challenge AGRA's claim that it prioritizes poor women farmers and youth, pointing to evidence that the primary beneficiaries of AGRA's programs have been wealthier male farmers. This contradicts the organization's stated goals and reveals a disconnect between its rhetoric and its actual impact on the ground. Unmasking the Gates Foundation's Agenda: The hosts extend their critique to AGRA's primary funder, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, arguing that the foundation's agenda prioritizes the interests of Western corporations and institutions over the needs of African farmers. They cite research from Grain, a journal that published a breakdown of the Gates Foundation's agricultural development grants, revealing that a staggering 82% of the funding was channeled to groups based in North America and Europe, while less than 10% went to Africa-based groups. This skewed distribution of funds, the hosts argue, demonstrates that the Gates Foundation is more interested in promoting Western-developed technologies and solutions than supporting existing knowledge and practices within Africa. They highlight the foundation's significant funding for the CGIAR, a consortium of international research centers known for promoting the Green Revolution, which has been widely criticized for its negative impacts on smallholder farmers and the environment. The hosts suggest that the Gates Foundation's focus on technological fixes, exemplified by its support for biofortification initiatives, ignores the root causes of hunger and malnutrition, such as poverty, lack of access to land, and unfair trade policies. They argue that biofortification, while potentially useful in emergency situations, is not a sustainable solution for addressing nutritional deficiencies. Exposing Conflicts of Interest: The hosts raise concerns about the potential conflict of interest posed by the Gates Foundation's investments in Monsanto, a multinational agricultural corporation known for its production of genetically modified seeds and herbicides. They argue that this financial tie, coupled with the Gates Foundation's influence over agricultural policy in Africa, creates a system that benefits corporations at the expense of smallholder farmers. Highlighting the Need for Agroecology: Despite the bleak picture painted by AGRA's failures, the hosts offer a glimmer of hope by highlighting the growing movement towards agroecology in Africa. They point to studies that show smallholder farmers in Africa prefer their own locally adapted crop varieties over the commercial hybrids promoted by AGRA. These locally adapted varieties are often more resilient to drought, require less water and inputs, and are better suited for intercropping, a technique that enhances biodiversity and soil health. The hosts conclude by emphasizing that true food sovereignty in Africa requires moving away from the industrial model of agriculture promoted by AGRA and embracing agroecological practices that prioritize local knowledge, biodiversity, and farmer control over food systems. For sources, transcripts, and to read more about this subject, visit: www.agroecologies.org To support this podcast, join our patreon for early, commercial-free episode access at https://www.patreon.com/poorprolesalmanac For PPA Restoration Content, visit: www.restorationagroecology.com For PPA Merch, visit: www.poorproles.com For PPA Native Plants, visit: www.nativenurseries.org To hear Tomorrow, Today, our sister podcast, visit: www.tomorrowtodaypodcast.org/