Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 8, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 5:04 p.m. to examine the development and security challenges facing Africa; the response of the international community to enhance that continent's development and political stability; Canadian foreign policy as it relates to Africa. TOPIC: Agriculture and related subjects.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, it is after five o'clock and I am calling the meeting to order. At the end of our meeting, I would like to ask people to stay behind because we have an important budget matter that should be dealt with in camera. It has to be in by March 10 because of the budget system.
Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. We are continuing our special study on Africa, as ordered by the Senate on December 8.
[Translation]
It is our pleasure today to welcome three witnesses from Africa who will be speaking to us about agriculture, a very important issue related to other areas such as international trade, social issues, nutrition, et cetera.
Our first witness is Mr. Ibrahima Coulibaly from Mali. Mr. Coulibaly started his career as a peasant farmer. He is now the manager of external affairs for the Association of professional producers of Mali. He also sits on the Executive Committee of the African Network of Peasant Farmer organizations and he is also the President of the National Coordinating body of Peasant Farmer Organizations, an organization that is working on drafting a new agricultural policy.
[English]
Next, we will hear from Dr. Regassa Feyissa, who is the Founder and Executive Director of Ethio-Organic Seed Action, an Ethiopian NGO working on sustainable agro-biodiversity management and use. He is acknowledged for his research and collaboration with farmers to protect Ethiopia's agricultural biodiversity and find markets for their agricultural products. He also won a Slow-Food Award in 2003.
I am a member of the Slow-Food organization, so I am very aware of the group.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. Lewanika, Executive Director of the National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, Zambia. He is Chairperson of the South African Development Community Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and Biosafety. He has been on Zambian delegations to ministerial conferences of the World Trade Organization and was also the Zambian representative in the negotiation that led to the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the organization Inter Pares and its executive director, Ms. Molly Kane, who made us aware of the visit to Ottawa of our three witnesses. Thank you for your kind cooperation.
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly, you now have the floor.
Mr. Ibrahima Coulibaly, Manager, external affairs, Association of professional producers of Mali: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you honorable senators for coming to hear us today. As the chairman already stated, I come from Mali, a country located in the Sahel region, a vast and very diverse region of western Africa whose main characteristic is pluviometric instability — in other words this is a region where it does not rain very often. It is also a region that is very dependent on agricultural production. Between 60 and 70 per cent of the population make their living from agriculture, in one form or another.
In the region I come from, the situation is becoming more and more difficult. In the mid 1980s, our countries embarked on structural adjustment programs under the impetus of the IMF and the World Bank. Under those programs, our countries had to liberalize their economies. With that liberalization all support to agriculture was eliminated. Under this new framework the situation of our producers became very fragile which led to several problems in our food production, which is the basis of our agricultural production, because at the same time our economies were opened up to food imports which in turn caused farm income in many cases to go down.
We had many crops besides food crops, for example cotton. Many farms therefore turned to cotton, a very different type of crop that is harvested for export on the international market. Over the past few years though, cotton has run into enormous problems on the international market because of subsidies in developed countries such as the United States, Greece and Spain.
We are now at an impasse; we can no longer make a decent living from food production and we can no longer turn to different crops such as cotton. That is our current situation, in a country where agricultural production occurs on small family farms, measuring between five and ten hectares each maximum. Now we are being told to turn to biotechnology.
Just to give you an example, a farm in Mali does not have access to farm credit, therefore it has no access to production supplies nor to a guaranteed market for its products. In other words our income is in a situation of chronic instability. We have absolutely no idea how much we will make in undertaking our activities. We are subject to changing climate conditions.
Currently we are being overwhelmed by pressure from developed countries such as the United States, who have established a lobbying office in our country to convince us to use GMOs, more specifically genetically modified cotton, which is not appropriate for our conditions simply because we do not have the amount of water that the seeds require in order to reach their potential. We do not have access to the farm credit that is required for this genetically modified cotton to reach its potential. We do not understand why we are being pressured to use these technologies that are not adapted to our conditions, at a time of differing cotton prices on the world market.
We are here today to talk to you about this situation and to tell you that we are farmers and that we want to continue to make a living and live with dignity. In order to do that we need to draft policies that protect the interests of the majority of our population, the farmers. This will not happen if we do not protect our food production, which is now illegally competing with the imported food invading our markets as a result of the WTO and the World Bank's liberal policies.
MGOs are a huge threat for us because we have no way of preserving our biological diversity other than by cultivating it year after year. We do not have a gene bank. We are going to loose this biological diversity if we adopt a technology that we have no control over. Furthermore, this biotechnology, for example genetically modified cotton, is patented by multinationals and threatens to dramatically increase the cost of production for our farms.
It is therefore for all these reasons that we do not want this technology to be imposed on us. We want to be able to choose our own policies and protect the interests of the majority of our population. That is why we want to ask you, as a government and members of Parliament, to help us so that we will not be made to make choices that will further impoverish the majority of our people.
I will end with that. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman: I would like to explain to those senators who are not very familiar with Mali that this country borders the Sahara near the bend within the border with Niger. It is an area of nomadic farming. It is on the other side of the Sahara, within West Africa.
In the south you have cotton production and in the north you have nomads. Am I correct?
Mr. Coulibaly: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: It is simply that we are hearing names of countries that some of us are not familiar with, and that is my point. Mr. Feyissa, please proceed.
Dr. Regassa Feyissa, Founder and Executive Director, Ethio-Organic Seed Action, Ethiopia: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to mention a few issues regarding biodiversity as related to food security. As we all know, particularly those of us from developing countries, our lives are strongly linked to resources. The linkages are so strong that they determine the entire day-to-day life of society at all levels. I would like to recall Canada as one of the countries that played a strong role right from the beginning in founding the Convention on Biological Diversity, in particular, in pushing for the human being as the centre of this convention. To date we have achieved a complete convention, having responsibilities as member countries to implement the requirements of the convention.
In the case of developing countries, where the life of society is closely tied to natural resources, gaps are always created — and not very deep analysis — that end in disruption of the existing systems where we are trying to link biodiversity to food security.
Technology in agriculture and production should be promoted, improved and extended to all corners of the world in such a way that it targets the core problems dominant at that level. Unfortunately, we have seen over decades, and still see today, indiscriminate approaches to promoting production in agriculture to alleviate poverty. It is unfortunate that because of the disruption of the system and inappropriate approaches to the problem, we have created such a gap that, in most cases, available options have disappeared. To date, regions such as Africa, having lost all options, are suffering the consequences of unintentional but indiscriminate pushing of technological or other ways to overcome those problems.
For example, Ethiopia is at the centre of diversity for various crops, but is also known for hunger and famine. In Ethiopia, over 85 per cent of the population is living by agriculture, but practising the traditional methods. At times, that is the wrong way and can be perceived as backward, but it still supports itself.
The interaction to promote productivity with modern technologies could not take into account the basic grounds upon which the entire agricultural production system is built.
As a technician, I may be one of those who unintentionally, because of lack of proper knowledge, are feeling the consequence of the drawback in productivity, the misunderstanding of the true nature of the problems. We have seen that in a country where problems and resources and cultural practices are so diverse, the approaches to overcome the problems are also diverse. Entry points vary from place to place. I am not sure that this has been understood for years and years, particularly in those countries like Canada that have always been there supporting the process of overcoming problems such as famine or drought or shortage of food.
This may not be unique to Ethiopia, but I would like to stress that biodiversity is focusing on humans. There is a strong relationship between people and the resources around them, and the appropriate use of these resources requires an understanding of this attachment. We believe that the technologies that are pushed have created some gaps. We are concerned that in the already existing situation, more indiscriminate or planned approaches are going to be put forward for certain African and other regions that will lead to trouble.
I would finally like to stress that it would be very useful, particularly considering the policy approaches, if local resources and capacities we support with external backstopping can strongly consider the situations on the ground, including the policy arrangements and the policy guidelines within a given country. I think this would be one of the correct ways to contribute to security.
The Chairman: I will ask one brief question. We know that in Mali the agricultural situation runs from desert to the forest. In the north there are herds and in the south it is cotton. Would you tell us what the main agricultural products are in Ethiopia? You are in a highland area. Would you like to tell the honourable senators what we are talking about?
Mr. Feyissa: Ethiopia ranges from the pastoralists, the lowland, to highland that rises up to 4,500 metres. The farming systems are complex and can be grouped into three main areas, the highland farming system, the intermediate and the lowland, where pastoralists are dominant. Here is a situation where the entry points to address those questions are diverse.
The Chairman: I do not want to put words in your mouth, but as I recall, you have a considerable number of rice paddies. There is quite a lot of rice grown in areas I have seen, and coffee. Would you like to give us examples of a few crops? I realize it is a complex geography. What are the three largest produced crops in Ethiopia?
Mr. Feyissa: One of the major crops is wheat, particularly durum wheat, because the country is a centre of diversity and seriously affected for decades by the displaced. The others are barley in the highlands and coffee in the west and southwestern part of the country. That is a humid, tropical area. Then other widely used crops are sorghum and maize.
Mr. Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika, Executive Director, National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research of Zambia: Chairperson and honourable senators, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to say something concerning the development of Africa. From the beginning, I acknowledge that the responsibility to develop Africa belongs to Africans, but from time to time, everyone needs assistance.
I also acknowledge that efforts to assist Africa develop have not been very successful. There are a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the governance itself. The issue of governance is being addressed now. If you look at the geography of Africa, there are very few military governments, very few dictatorships. Part of the problem of governance was the inheritance of the Cold War syndrome, where some countries were being supported by the Soviet Union and some countries were being supported by the West. Regardless of how bad those governments were, as long as they fitted the ideology they were kept in power. All of a sudden, we are being told “You have to be democratic.”
The other issue is multilateral organizations that have assisted Africa, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The intention is to assist, but the method did not work. For example, up to the early 1990s, Zambia was self-sufficient in food, but once we started implementing prescriptions from the World Bank and the IMF, reducing subsidies to agriculture, reducing spending on social services like health and education, our poverty level started increasing. Even though agreements are made through consensus, our voice is not as strong as the voice of a country like Canada or the United Kingdom, so our interest, in most cases, is not served by multilateral organizations.
Even in negotiations, if you look at the Zambian delegation, in most cases it is two or three people. The developed countries have lawyers and specialists, so you do not have a level playing field. There is a need to try to assist us, but even where we are supposed to have an equal voice, we need more help to acknowledge that we are partners, but weaker partners.
The other problem with the assistance is that it is usually directed at addressing symptoms. The symptoms are disease and environmental degradation, but the problem is poverty and also the low optics of science and technology. If assistance is targeted at addressing the problems, then you can see that in the future we may be self-sufficient. If the assistance continues addressing the symptoms, then it will be a Catch-22 and the problems will continue.
The other issue I wanted to share with you is, in the year 2002 we had a food crisis in Zambia. At the peak of the food crisis, the government did not accept food aid that contained genetically modified organisms.
There were a number of reasons. The first reason was that we were not even told from the onset that what we were being provided contained genetically modified organisms. That is contrary to international norms and against the convention on food aid.
When we looked at our capacity, we saw that we did not have a framework to assess GMO like many countries do, on a case-by-case basis. When we looked at what was happening globally, we saw that scientists are divided on the issue. Some scientists say there is no harm, but some say there is a potential for harm.
The target groups of the food aid are the most vulnerable in society. Some of them are immune-compromised due to poor nutrition and, sometimes, HIV/AIDS. If there are health problems in those people, the problems would be aggravated.
The other reason the government used was that if you give a farmer some food in the form of grain, the natural instinct is to eat some and save some for planting. That would actually mean harming local varieties of maize.
The third reason the government used was that when it was known there was a food crisis and the government expressed concern, there was enough time to source non-GMO food within Zambia itself, within parts of Zambia with surplus food. There were also some countries within Africa that had surplus food. However, the World Food Program said that according to their regulations, they can only buy from the cheapest source, even if it meant that source was as far away as the U.S. The feeling was that we were being forced to take GMO food, and it was a question of either you take it or you starve.
What happened since then is that there was a redoubled effort by the country to improve agriculture production. Since then, we have had a surplus in food.
The last thing I wanted to say is that there is a school of thought that genetically modified organisms will stop hunger. They will not stop hunger. If anything, they contribute to food insecurity.
Senator Carney: I want to congratulate you all on your clear presentations of a very complex issue. I want to confess that I had to look at the map to see where Mali is. I have been to Kenya several times, but many of us do not know Africa to the degree that you do. I support the chair in his efforts to clarify some of the information for us.
You must be interested in us. I wanted to assure you that most Canadians are only two, or at the most three, generations off the farm. I do not know about my colleagues, but if you scratch any Canadian, his father or mother or grandparents were farmers.
We are very interested in your experiences. Some of us can milk cows and plant potatoes, like me because I am an Irish Canadian and that is what we did to live.
I wanted you to be aware that while we may seem to you to be strangers who cannot comprehend the enormity of your problem, we do want to learn from you.
It is hard to know where to start because you have presented this so clearly. Let me start with Mr. Lewanika. It bothers us that the World Bank and the international agencies have been unable to help you. We pour a lot of money and goodwill into those agencies. You have given us clear examples, such as genetically modified food and other issues. What could they do that would help you, or is the culture in those institutions so poisonous, so disturbing to your agriculture, that they cannot be helpful?
We cannot change the culture of the IMF or the World Bank — slashing subsidies, cutting back, balancing budgets, et cetera — but what could we as donors to those associations do that would actually help you on the ground?
Mr. Lewanika: The first thing is that projects must start from the grassroots. They cannot be top-down. Also, there is the issue of one size fits all. Even though we come from the same continent and maybe we have the same problems, there is some uniqueness. When somebody tries to assist us, it is best to go to the grassroots to learn what the problem is.
There is a tendency to bring experts. Some of these experts have never been to Africa before. We have local experts who could be used.
Senator Carney: Do your colleagues have examples?
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: The World Bank financed cotton production in Mali. Within twenty years, through loans from the World Bank, Mali became the major producer of cotton in Africa. More recently, with problems related to the decline in prices, our unions have organized. We now negotiate prices with the state of Mali's cotton company before seeding. Before each season we negotiate prices first. We went on a production strike and the government is now talking to us.
This year we negotiated a price with the producers. At the beginning of the season the price was 210 CFA francs per kilo. However by the time the cotton had matured, the price on the international market was too low and the World Bank told the government of Mali to renegotiate the price with us. If it did not comply, the World Bank threatened to cut its credit to the government of Mali. The government knew that if it went ahead with this, serious problems would arise in the cotton production zone. So it did not weaken. The World Bank says that it is trying to eliminate poverty and yet it cuts the income of the poorest. This is what is happening and you can see it for yourselves.
The government of Mali has had serious problems with the World Bank this year because it refused to renegotiate a price that has already been negotiated with the cotton producer unions.
[English]
Senator Carney: Your suggestion is that the World Bank and other institutions are too inflexible, with a one-size- fits-all attitude, as you say. They need to be more flexible and based more on the grassroots. I understand that.
In Canada, our aid program is usually based on the fact that we respond to requests from countries. If so, why are your countries not asking us for the aid that you want? Am I putting that correctly?
The Chairman: There is a disconnect, I guess.
Senator Carney: We say, “Well, we only do what you ask us to,” but you are saying that many of the things that we do are not helpful. What is the answer?
Mr. Lewanika: Bilateral aid is very helpful, and you can see the results. However, the aid that comes through the World Bank and the IMF is actually difficult to —
Senator Carney: That is helpful. I have one question to help us. My notes say that Mr. Coulibaly has established himself as a peasant farmer. You completed your studies in agricultural engineering and then established yourself as a peasant farmer. How would you describe a peasant farmer in Mali?
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: I would like to start by describing life on a family farm to you because there are no individual farmers in Mali, such as you have in developed countries. These are families that work together, family farms.
In one family you may find up to 100 people working the land. Of course there are smaller groups within these large families and generally the families cultivate rather small areas because our agriculture is not very mechanized.
Our agricultural implements consist of plows pulled by oxen; that is generally what we use. In Mali, 55 per cent of farm families use that type of equipment. The other families, the other 45 per cent, do not even have a plow and oxen. Those are the kinds of difficult circumstances these families live in despite all the aid this country receives. In 2005, this is the case in Mali.
Most of these families produce primarily grain. This is food production. We produce first to eat, not for the market. The market is a complementary activity, after food needs have been met. We grow cotton because it brings in more income than grain. The price of grain is usually too low to meet financial needs. That is why several families began growing cotton.
Just to give you an example, a family growing three hectares of cotton, with the right amount of fertilizer, after a good raining season, can earn a maximum of $400 Canadian. That will cover the financial needs of that family for the 12 months of the year. That is the income of an average family because farms measure on average three to five hectares.
However, there are cases of families in debt. This is what happens in most cases. If the season is not good, if there has not been enough rain, then most of these families will not earn anything. There have been cases where the cotton company, under systems that provide fertilizer on credit to farmers, has seized the only farm implement from these families: their oxen.
This is the general situation we are in and it is in this context that we are being asked to further reduce our income by cutting prices to producers. In the year 2000, we went on strike because the government wanted to cut our cotton income. Since then we have been able to negotiate fairly fair prices with the government of Mali.
[English]
Senator Grafstein: I, too, want to welcome all the witnesses. I want to ask you some questions about farm policy. We are dealing with individual questions and I really want to talk about systemic farm policy.
At one time, we looked at various models of agricultural policy. I spent some time in China and looked at their agricultural policy, the special responsibility households. I have taken a look at the Israeli commune and the cooperative model. I have taken a look at the Cuban, Chilean and Costa Rican models. We have heard about individual problems, but have any of the three witnesses taken a look at successful agricultural policies in various countries and determined which ones would be most suited to the particular facts of their country?
Let me give you an example from Ethiopia. Ethiopia, and I am sure this is well known to the witness, makes probably the best coffee in the world after Kenyan coffee. It is a cash product; it is world class. You can get a very good cup of Kenyan or Ethiopian coffee at two or three of the coffee stands in this building. Have any of you looked at other models and said “This is a model that we can adopt?”
There is a Canadian model, of course, as well. The Canadian model was beset with problems for the better part of half a century. After the war, various governments attacked that problem by changing the agricultural system — not just the farmers but the system and the size of farms and the cooperation amongst farmers.
My question for the three of you is have you looked at other systems and come to the conclusion that there are one or two models that have been very successful — the Chilean example, the Israeli example, which have been very successful in arid circumstances — and beneficial to the farming communities that they serve?
The Chairman: Dr. Feyissa, would you like to have a word?
Mr. Feyissa: Let me say a few words. Unfortunately, I am not that informed about farming policies in other countries. However, I can still talk about some problems that we have now in our country to explain why agriculture is lagging behind and discuss what the gaps are within the policy.
It is well accepted by the majority of the people that the land tenure system is one of the serious problems in maintaining the sustainability of agricultural productivity. Farmers do not have a clear right to use, or ownership of, the land. This has always discouraged farmers from making the investment that the land requires for at least five, six, seven years. This is one of the serious gaps we have. There are policy gaps and there is confusion.
There is a model that development of the country will be based on the direction of agriculture or industrial agriculture. The problem is that we could not find a direct indication of which is which — where we should start. Here is where the policy starts, but it does not finish its direction.
The core problem is the land tenure system. As of now, that is hampering productivity and interferes with traditional institutions in the absence of well-shaped policy.
This is a short synopsis of the current situation in Ethiopia.
Mr. Lewanika: First, farmers need access to markets and a fair price for their produce. They need the required inputs, that is, things like seed and fertilizer. They also have to shift from dependence on rain-fed agriculture to irrigation. However, when you move toward irrigation, you cut out a certain segment of farmers who cannot afford irrigation equipment.
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: The only success factor in an agricultural policy is the price that a producer can get. A policy cannot be built on selling one's production at a loss. That is the case for all African countries. There are no miracle solutions. That is why developed countries such as Canada provides subsidies to producers so that they can continue to make a living from their work for ten months. The World Bank has clearly forbidden our countries to provide subsidies since the 1990s. We cannot support agriculture.
At the same time, liberal policies and the opening of our markets to food imports has been imposed on us. We are therefore competing with imported food products that are in fact the food surpluses from developed countries. How can you expect us to manage under these conditions?
We are asking you to allow us to make choices that will protect the interest of the majority of our people and that will allow us to protect our borders from food imports and from the surpluses from developed countries. Furthermore, we want to have access to our own markets because we have been marginalized within our own markets. I assure you that in western Africa, wheat is quickly becoming a part of our food habits. Why? Because wheat and bread cost less, even though they are not sold at their true price. Wheat is more expensive in Canada than it is in Senegal and Bamako. Is that normal? Yet that is reality. That is why we cannot break out of this situation.
[English]
The Chairman: We heard a very similar story about Mexico, where subsidized imports of beans and maize have driven millions of people off the land.
Senator Grafstein: Canada, China and Cuba, three countries with different political systems, all apply essentially the same principle, that being product-by-product farm marketing boards. In China, the government told all Chinese farmers, of whatever commodity, that they would provide a certain quota for which they would pay a fixed price and that the farmers would be free to sell anything produced beyond that at market prices. That same idea prevailed in Israel, Cuba and Canada.
Do any of your countries have the concept of a farm marketing board that allows farmers to produce a specified amount, which gives them their fixed income at a very low rate, and provides incentive for them to go beyond the quota level for further market distribution?
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: Until 1985 Mali had a grain board. It was the World Bank that called for the elimination of the board. It no longer exists. It was at that point that poverty in the rural areas started to rise. Since there was no longer any support, prices began to fluctuate. In that kind of situation, producers have no control over their income. I do not even know if this kind of government-run marketing board exists in developed countries like Canada. In our countries, the idea of having the State play a role, with large State marketing entities, is taboo. It would be unacceptable to talk about it today in our countries.
[English]
Mr. Lewanika: The same is true in Zambia. Until 1990, we had a grain marketing board, but we had to dissolve it when we implemented the structural adjustment program of the IMF and the World Bank. They also insisted that the government give no assistance in agriculture, that agriculture be left to market forces.
Mr. Feyissa: That is the case in Ethiopia as well.
Senator Di Nino: Welcome, and thank you for coming here.
We hope that we can learn something from you that will lead us to make recommendations to our government.
Are most farms in your countries owned by farmers, owned by individuals and leased to farmers, or owned by governments that allow people to work them? Could you tell us how that works in your countries?
Mr. Feyissa: In the land policy of the country, it is stated that land belongs to the government and the people. When interpretation comes down to action, it is the government that decides, not the people. That causes a problem. There is currently an argument about this statement, in that it does not clearly define to what extent the government owns the land and in what form, in what form the people own the land, and what the linkages are between the people and the government in deciding on the style of usage and ownership rights. There is confusion about that.
This has an implication for the investments of farmers. Farmers invest for five to seven years in plantations and soil conservation or nutrient maintenance. It has become a disincentive that eventually destroys farmers' capital, because with no one looking after the soil it is dying and becoming no one's resource, which impacts overall food production.
Mr. Lewanika: The basic principle in Zambia is that land has no value. It is the development of land that has good value. We have two types of land; traditional land, to which you cannot have title, and non-traditional land, to which you can have title. When you have title, you own the land for 99 years, after which it reverts back to the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: In Mali, the land tenure system is such that all land belongs to the State, but common law, which is the community's rights to use the land, is also recognized. Every village has a land entitlement and all the families in the village have the right to work part of that land. In theory, the land cannot be taken from the families who farm it.
With the new agricultural policy that we are developing, the government is in agreement with us that the rights of these families to use the land needs to be formalized. We have not yet gotten into the details, but we have proposed that secure title be given so that the families have ownership of the land and can therefore feel secure. There is also developed land that belongs to the State, and the State controls things in that case.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: That is very useful.
The other message that is coming across, as the chair says, is that the World Bank, the IMF and other organizations of a similar nature seem to be creating more problems than they are solving with their approach. Certainly I would imagine the requirement that the agricultural community deal with their products at a world-level market would create problems for countries.
If you could write my portion of the report dealing with those two issues, the World Bank and the IMF, what would you change? How would you do it differently, acknowledging the fact that some assistance is required through these organizations? I would like the response of all three, if possible.
Mr. Lewanika: Part of the problem is that there is no transparent mechanism to evaluate whether the World Bank and the IMF are succeeding in different countries. They do evaluate projects, but we do not hear the feedback. If there could be an independent body to monitor and evaluate projects that come through the World Bank and the IMF, and also if they started listening to the people instead of prescribing one-size-fits-all development strategies, that would be helpful.
Mr. Feyissa: Sometimes the approaches do not consider the local conditions. I can provide an example. Some years back, inputs were subsidized by the government because those low-input cultivars that farmers could grow were discouraged through imposition and farmers were told that to increase food, they should not grow them, and the government did the same.
Recently, there was another imposition that the government should not subsidize farmers. By then, farmers did not have seeds that can be grown without inputs. Inputs are not there. The price of the input has gone up because it was privatized and there was no market that absorbed farmers' produce to let them pay back the debts.
This is a situation where the condition became a serious disincentive for farmers to produce. This is one of the roles that were not considered in the example in Ethiopia.
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: I believe that if we really want to improve the way that financial and international institutions deal with our country, we cannot ignore the results of their past actions. We need to look at what has been done, see where there have been problems and even assign responsibility. We cannot understand how it is that poor countries are used as guinea pigs for approaches that are not even used in the countries that fund those institutions. This is unacceptable.
In fact, we are used as guinea pigs for economic models that do not exist anywhere else. We need to figure out who is responsible for that. People are poor because of that situation. The kind of poverty that we see in our country did not exist 20 years ago. There is more poverty than before the World Bank set foot in our countries. But who is responsible? That needs to be examined.
The Chairman: We will be asking the World Bank questions ourselves. You are giving us questions to ask them.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: I would like to make a request of our witnesses. If you can add to the responses that you have given this evening, I would appreciate it if you could send to our clerk any thoughts, particularly as to how you think problems can and should be solved so that, obviously, the results would be what you are looking for. That would be useful. When you return home in the next month or two, if you could send us some information, we would appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Senator Mahovlich: What is the most effective way for donor countries to contribute to improved agriculture and development in Africa? What can we do in Canada to help Africa? Do we send farmers or lawyers? It sounds like this is a political problem. When the World Bank got involved, they changed policy. It was political, was it not? Is this what we have to change to stop the hunger in Africa?
[Translation]
Mr. Coulibaly: What the donor countries could do, in fact, is to give us legal assistance today to fight the World Bank in the courts. I think that this would be worthwhile, because we feel that we have been the victims of prejudice. We feel that the damages that we have suffered need to be addressed. In my opinion, this might be something that could be done. The second thing might be to avoid sending experts or farmers, since if you ask a Malian farmer what he needs, he will tell you that he needs a plough, a pair of oxen and water to irrigate his field. He will not tell you that he needs genetically-modified seed. If you can help prevent genetically-modified seed from being imposed on us, that would be very helpful. Developed countries and multinationals are currently pushing us very hard to accept GMOs. This is not something that the farmers are asking for.
[English]
Mr. Feyissa: There may be no need to send lawyers. There also may be no need to send someone to tell farmers how to farm, because farming in the world is so diverse and the knowledge is so wide. Farming is so diverse across regions. One important thing is that the rule is working in such a way that it is starting from the wrong point. We have still a wound from the green revolution. As a technician I am not against that. Irrationality is a problem now. It is not yet healed. Local resources and capacities are not used; they are rejected. The imposition is backward. That was how it moved. It seems like there is a need to assist in empowering the capacity to exploit the local resource to improve, enhance and promote the technology in line with improvement of the local capacity, and to fill the gaps where that local capacity and resources do not match. This is where close attention is needed.
Mr. Lewanika: What we would request is to have a level playing field. If in the process from planting to selling, subsidies are allowed somewhere, let them be allowed everywhere else. Let the negotiations on agriculture go through the World Trade Organization. If they say, “No subsidies,” let it apply to everyone. Do not let those who are more powerful find ways to get around it, because we cannot.
The Chairman: I will just remind members, because some may have forgotten, we had the World Bank before us when we were involved in our NAFTA study, and it was not an impressive meeting. They were telling us things that turned out not to be accurate.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I am tempted to describe Mr. Coulibaly as the Jose Bove of Africa. That may not be accurate, but you are very enthusiastic and I admire you. It is clear that you love your country.
I always listen to speeches carefully and pay attention to the choice of words and expressions. Language is the vehicle of culture, and if we do not understand people's culture, there is something missing in our aid programs. The World Bank and other financial organizations tend to try to impose concepts, language and models on you such as evaluation parameter, performance, annual growth, average annual growth and strategic remedy.
If I understood you correctly, Mr. Coulibaly, I do not think that applies in any way in your case. Before we claim to be able to help you, we must learn your language, your way of doing things. That is the fundamental flaw in all of our aid programs. It seems obvious to me. Even the financial institutions in which we are involved seem to lack a fundamental respect of your life style and objectives. Not only do they impose policies on you, they also interfere in the internal administration of your country. And as you said, people are impoverished as a result.
Second, and this is a very important point, this is International Women's Day, at least it is in Canada, and I believe it is throughout the world. Could you talk about the role of women in agriculture in your country, because I believe they play a key role there, do they not?
Mr. Coulibaly: I will start with your last question regarding the role of women. Women play a central role in our families. When people look at the situation in Africa from the outside, generally all they see is polygamy, genital mutilation and the fact that women have no right. The fact is that if we look very closely, we see that women, particularly rural women, play a very important role. Everything depends on women. Families cannot exist in all countries without women. That is impossible. They play a role not only in agricultural production — and they are tremendously involved here — but also in taking care of the home. The entire economic core of a family depends on this. I can assure you that many women, even in rural communities, are engaged in independent farming activities the revenues from which are theirs to use as they see fit. However, it is true that there is still a great deal to be done to ensure that African women generally can achieve the level of emancipation women achieved in the developed world. The important thing is the economic emancipation of women. Once a woman becomes economically independent, all the other rights follow automatically. That is where this real struggle lies. We will not be able to change people's attitudes about genital mutilation or polygamy until women are economically independent. In many places, women cannot be prevented from engaging in economic activities. Even in rural communities, women are free to engage in economic activities.
We no longer have any freedom of choice as regards policy, and I think that is what triggered poverty. If you look at the figures of the World Bank itself before its program was introduced, you will see that poverty was not increasing very much. Once the support system for agriculture was dislocated, all the agricultural supports were dismantled. Apparently this cost the government too much.
The entire health care system was dismantled because it was too expensive. The same is true of the education system. I can tell you that today public schooling exists in name only. If students really want to learn something, they have to go to private school. So the poor are even more marginalized than they were before the World Bank became involved. There were no private schools in Mali before the World Bank came in. Today it is the children of the elite who have access to education.
The same thing happens with health care. If you do not go to a clinic, you will not get care. There were no private clinics in Mali before the World Bank arrived. Before the World Bank came in, I can tell you that a grain farmer knew what he was earning because the price of grains was set by the Mali Farm Products Board, which was a Crown corporation. It bought grains at the same price throughout the country, and then sold it to consumers. This entire system has been dismantled.
Mali can no longer go back to that type of choice; it is no longer possible. Putting figures into columns, on tables or charts does absolutely nothing to solve our problems. Quite the contrary. All these figures mean absolutely nothing.
It does not help us to say that all the adjustment programs that were implemented have done absolutely no good, because Mali is more in debt than it was before. In 1980, Mali had almost no debt. Our debt today is some 3,000 billion CFA francs. That means that the debt of each person in Mali is several hundred million CFA francs. And yet the living conditions of each inhabitant of Mali are not commensurate with hundreds of millions of CFA francs. This is a revolting situation. This is why the developed world must focus on debt forgiveness. Our rural people are paying off this debt today because we pay income tax to pay down the debt. We are repaying loans that were of no use to us, which simply impoverished us. Our incomes are very low because our markets have been opened up. We cannot sell our agricultural products for a decent price and we have to pay income tax to pay down the debt, which has given us nothing.
[English]
Mr. Lewanika: Since you mentioned that today is International Women's Day, the best teacher I have had, who had a lasting impression on me, was my mother. Really, you cannot go beyond that. The majority of small-scale farmers are women. They are not discriminated against when it comes to getting title. Where they used to have problems is getting loans for agriculture, but that is being addressed. There is a problem in education. When they start school, you have almost the same number of girls and boys, but as they progressively go further, the girls start dropping out, so they need to address the issue of girls' education.
Mr. Feyissa: As colleagues said, today is a great day for women. Women in Ethiopia are the best selectors of varieties and the best breeders. It is thanks to the women in Zambia that there is such variety and diversity in the range of crops today. This is important for us and I am very pleased to be able to say this, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You are saying that poverty has increased in your respective countries since the IMF and the World Bank imposed certain requirements on you. Is that correct?
Mr. Coulibaly: Absolutely.
Senator Robichaud: That is certainly something that can be seen, but when your governments raise these issues with the IMF and the World Bank, what is their reply when it is pointed out that poverty has increased because you have to comply with the requirements of these institutions? Can they not see it themselves?
Mr. Coulibaly: Our governments know that poverty has increased since the introduction of structural adjustment, but a country that cannot afford to pay its government employees a monthly wage has absolutely no manoeuvring room. That is the situation in which our countries find themselves. The World Bank pays these salaries.
Can you see how an administration can work when government employees are not being paid? In such a situation, how can you expect politicians to raise these issues! They never raise them. We are the people experiencing these problems and we are the ones who have to raise them today. Politicians are aware of them, but they never raise them. The proof is that the World Bank is still the champion in all categories in the war on poverty in our countries. The World Bank was the institution that developed the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Why? Because the World Bank knows it is responsible. It is taking the lead precisely to avoid any legal challenges, perhaps.
That is why the World Bank established the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper in all African countries. But I can tell you that if you read these strategy papers, you will see no reference to farm income. There is no reference to income at all. You may see many things in these papers, but you will not see that. Farmers have their right to improve their income by selling their products. That is the basis of everything. We represent 70 per cent of the population.
We have never been involved in these poverty reductions strategy papers that were developed without consulting the farmers. We do not acknowledge them. We think this is just a means used by the World Bank and its experts to drag things out.
[English]
Mr. Feyissa: Honourable senators, I can say that it is not easy for citizens in many African countries to understand the structure of the governments in their respective countries. Any arrangements made, at whatever level, are a kind of in-house issue between the World Bank or other organizations and small offices at high levels.
There have been three or four institutional arrangements in agriculture in Ethiopia because of impositions from the ministry and line organizations. In such cases, decisions in respect of local policies are made by large global institutions. The effect is such that individual citizens are suffering. It is sad that such global representation of nations and institutions does not provide space for citizens of our countries so that they might be aware of what is going on. That is how it works.
Mr. Lewanika: The relationship between the World Bank and most countries is one of high-percentage funding for their budgets. For example, 80 per cent of the Zambian budget is funded through the World Bank, so the relationship continues. Like they say in cowboy movies, he who has the gold makes the rules.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I think you are telling us that you are caught in a vicious circle, are you not? You know from experience that what is being proposed will only make people poorer. Is that not correct? You refer to the high percentage of your people who depend on agriculture, and of course, agriculture is an activity carried out in rural communities. You say as well that these people can no longer earn their livelihood from farming. The rural regions will probably loose people to the urban centers, because these people can no longer meet their needs. Is that what is happening? The problem will be moved elsewhere.
Mr. Coulibaly: That is exactly correct. That is why we are sounding the alarm. Approximately 70 per cent of the population is involved in farming; it may have been 85 per cent a few years ago. That means that people who can no longer earn a living from farming, that they give up and move into the cities. We have some very large cities in Mali today, and our country has barely 11 million inhabitants. One of our cities has a population of almost 2 million today. This is ridiculous. However, in this city, there are no jobs; there are no factories or any viable economic sector. That means that these huge cities we are building are becoming impossible to live in, because if the people who come from the country cannot find employment in another economic sector, they will not be able to live decently. That means we are facing an explosive situation in the medium term. And the politicians know it. This always crops up in their speeches. They are afraid of this uncontrolled urbanization, with all these people leaving the country to come and live in the cities.
[English]
Mr. Feyissa: This will continue, and at the same time, there is a great deal of silence from outside. At times, those of us who have opportunities to see various forums are quite surprised by the silence. There is no market, there is no infrastructure, there is no support at the ground level, there is no promotion of products and there is no incentive at various levels, as in the case of the coffee that you mentioned. In Europe and North America they say there are no suppliers for our coffee. The coffee is produced but it does not have a market. As a result, the coffee plants are uprooted and replaced by other kinds of crops. That is the situation.
Mr. Lewanika: Migration to the urban areas has created another problem, because those cities and towns cannot provide services to unplanned-for squatters. That has led to an increase in crime, which has become a very big problem.
The Chairman: On behalf of senators, I thank you for your interesting and important testimony. The problem of rural people moving to the cities has been the curse of many countries. An example of that is Bogota, Columbia, where 3 million people are living in hovels. It is possible to see where the city actually stopped functioning in the 1950s as more and more people migrated from rural areas. The same problem is occurring in Africa.
The committee adjourned.