Wednesday 17 July 2013

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops


By Andrew Malone
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.

The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father’s body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.
As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India’s economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.
Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years’ earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on – they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless – as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.

Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.

As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. ‘He was a loving and caring man,’ she said, weeping quietly.

‘But he couldn’t take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.’
Shankara’s crop had failed – twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India’s ancient story.

But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts – and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
The crisis, branded the ‘GM Genocide’ by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a ‘global moral question’ – and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.

Speaking by video link to a conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, he infuriated bio-tech leaders and some politicians by condemning ‘the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming… from the failure of many GM crop varieties’.
Ranged against the Prince are powerful GM lobbyists and prominent politicians, who claim that genetically modified crops have transformed Indian agriculture, providing greater yields than ever before.

The rest of the world, they insist, should embrace ‘the future’ and follow suit.
So who is telling the truth? To find out, I travelled to the ‘suicide belt’ in Maharashtra state.
What I found was deeply disturbing – and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.

For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.
Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide – a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.
Pro-GM experts claim that it is rural poverty, alcoholism, drought and ‘agrarian distress’ that is the real reason for the horrific toll.
But, as I discovered during a four-day journey through the epicentre of the disaster, that is not the full story.

In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands – only to kill themselves as well.

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed – two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.

She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. ‘He cries when he thinks of his mother,’ said the dead woman’s aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.
Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.

The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were ‘magic seeds’ – with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.

The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.

In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.

But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers’ lives have slid back into the dark ages.

Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years – up to 17 million acres – many famers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.
Far from being ‘magic seeds’, GM pest-proof ‘breeds’ of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That’s because GM seeds contain so- called ‘terminator technology’, meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.
Take the case of Suresh Bhalasa, another farmer who was cremated this week, leaving a wife and two children.

As night fell after the ceremony, and neighbours squatted outside while sacred cows were brought in from the fields, his family had no doubt that their troubles stemmed from the moment they were encouraged to buy BT Cotton, a genetically modified plant created by Monsanto.

‘We are ruined now,’ said the dead man’s 38-year-old wife. ‘We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.’

Villagers bundled him into a rickshaw and headed to hospital along rutted farm roads. ‘He cried out that he had taken the insecticide and he was sorry,’ she said, as her family and neighbours crowded into her home to pay their respects. ‘He was dead by the time they got to hospital.’

Asked if the dead man was a ‘drunkard’ or suffered from other ‘social problems’, as alleged by pro-GM officials, the quiet, dignified gathering erupted in anger. ‘No! No!’ one of the dead man’s brothers exclaimed. ‘Suresh was a good man. He sent his children to school and paid his taxes.

‘He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.’

Monsanto has admitted that soaring debt was a ‘factor in this tragedy’. But pointing out that cotton production had doubled in the past seven years, a spokesman added that there are other reasons for the recent crisis, such as ‘untimely rain’ or drought, and pointed out that suicides have always been part of rural Indian life.

Officials also point to surveys saying the majority of Indian farmers want GM seeds  -  no doubt encouraged to do so by aggressive marketing tactics.

During the course of my inquiries in Maharastra, I encountered three ‘independent’ surveyors scouring villages for information about suicides. They insisted that GM seeds were only 50 per cent more expensive – and then later admitted the difference was 1,000 per cent.

(A Monsanto spokesman later insisted their seed is ‘only double’ the price of ‘official’ non-GM seed – but admitted that the difference can be vast if cheaper traditional seeds are sold by ‘unscrupulous’ merchants, who often also sell ‘fake’ GM seeds which are prone to disease.)

With rumours of imminent government compensation to stem the wave of deaths, many farmers said they were desperate for any form of assistance. ‘We just want to escape from our problems,’ one said. ‘We just want help to stop any more of us dying.’

Prince Charles is so distressed by the plight of the suicide farmers that he is setting up a charity, the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation, to help those affected and promote organic Indian crops instead of GM.

India’s farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

This came too late for Shankara Mandauker, who was 80,000 rupees (about £1,000) in debt when he took his own life. ‘I told him that we can survive,’ his widow said, her children still by her side as darkness fell. ‘I told him we could find a way out. He just said it was better to die.’

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children’s schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

Cruelly, it’s the young who are suffering most from the ‘GM Genocide’  -  the very generation supposed to be lifted out of a life of hardship and misery by these ‘magic seeds’.
Here in the suicide belt of India, the cost of the genetically modified future is murderously high.

Sunday 23 June 2013

Experimenting With Life


By David Suzuki
David Suzuki, a Geneticist
I am a geneticist by training. At one time, I had one of the largest research grants and genetics labs in Canada. The time I spent in this lab was one of the happiest periods of my life and I am proud of the contribution we made to science. My introductory book is still the most widely used genetics text in the world.

When I graduated as a geneticist in 1961, I was full of enthusiasm and determined to make a mark. Back then we knew about DNA, genes, chromosomes, and genetic regulation. But today when I tell students what our hot ideas were in '61, they choke with laughter. Viewed in 2013, ideas from 1961 seem hilarious. But when those students become professors years from now and tell their students what was hot in 2013, their students will be just as amused.
At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark - wrong, in need of revision, or irrelevant. That's not a derogation of science; it's the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.
No group of experts should be more aware of the hazards of unwarranted claims than geneticists. After all, it was the exuberance of geneticists early in this century that led to the creation of a discipline called eugenics, which aimed to improve the quality of human genes.
 These scientists were every bit as clever, competent, and well-meaning as today's genetic engineers; they just got carried away with their discoveries. Outlandish claims were made by eminent geneticists about the hereditary nature of traits such as drunkenness, nomadism, and criminality, as well as those judged "inferior" or "superior." Those claims provided scientific respectability to legislation in the US prohibiting interracial marriage and immigration from countries judged inferior, and allowed sterilization of inmates of mental institutions on genetic grounds. In Nazi Germany, geneticist Josef Mengele held peer-reviewed research grants for his work at Auschwitz. The grand claims of geneticists led to "race purification" laws and the Holocaust.
Today, the leading-edge of genetics is in the field of biotechnology. The basis of this new area is the ability to take DNA (genetic material) from one organism and insert it into a different species. This is truly revolutionary. Human beings can't normally exchange genes with a carrot or a mouse, but with DNA technology it can happen.
However, history informs us that though we love technology, there are always costs, and since our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can't anticipate how those costs will manifest. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.
Now, with a more wise and balanced perspective, we are cutting back on the use of these technologies. But with genetically modified (GM) foods, this option may not be available. The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage - even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change, and spread; there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions of years through the natural reproduction of species.
Genomes are selected in the entirety of their expression. In ways we barely comprehend, the genes within a species are interconnected and interact as an integrated whole. When a gene from an unrelated species is introduced, the context within which it finds itself is completely changed. If a taiko drum is plunked in the middle of a symphony orchestra and plays along, it is highly probable the resultant music will be pretty discordant. Yet based on studies of gene behavior derived from studies within a species, biotechnologists assume that those rules will also apply to genes transferred between species. This is totally unwarranted.
As we learned from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.
Since GM foods are now in our diet, we have become experimental subjects without any choice. (Europeans say if they want to know whether GMOs are hazardous, they should just study North Americans.) I would have preferred far more experimentation with GMOs under controlled lab conditions before their release into the open, but it's too late.
We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice.

David T Suzuki PhD is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. Web:www.davidsuzuki.org

Tuesday 11 June 2013

Monsanto: Contamination by all means necessary



By Colin Todhunter
What happens when you allow commercial interests free rein over a nation state's food and agricultural policies? Consumers and farmers end up paying the price. Take the current predicament of wheat contamination in the US.

Genetically engineered (GE) wheat is not approved to be grown for commercial use in the US or anywhere else in the world. Yet the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that unapproved GE wheat has been found growing in an Oregon wheat field. An Oregon farmer sprayed his wheat field, intending it to lay fallow for the next year. Despite multiple sprays of Monsanto's Round Up, the farmer found that the crops unexpectedly persisted, just as GE crops are engineered to do. This prompted him to send samples to a scientist at Oregon State University, who determined that the crops were infused with the RoundUp Ready gene. The USDA confirmed the results.

Since 1994, Monsanto has conducted 279 field trials of RoundUp Ready wheat over more than 4,000 acres of land in 16 states. The USDA has admitted that Monsanto's GMO experiments from 1998 to 2005 were held in open wheat fields. The genetically engineered wheat escaped and found its way into commercial wheat fields in Oregon (and possibly 15 other states), causing self-replicating genetic pollution that now taints the entire US wheat industry.

Contamination of non-GE crops is a serious concern. Worries about harm to human health and the environment are well documented. But GE contaminated wheat has wider ramifications. In the wake of the disclosure of contaminated wheat, Japan has cancelled its offer to buy US western white wheat. Toru Hisadome, a Japanese farm ministry official in charge of wheat trading, is reported by Reuters news agency as saying that Japan will refrain from buying western white and feed wheat immediately.

Asian consumers are keenly sensitive to gene-altered food, with few countries allowing imports of such cereals for human consumption. Asia imports more than 40 million tonnes of wheat annually, almost a third of the global trade. The bulk of the region's supplies come from the US. Meanwhile, the European Union has prepared to begin testing shipments for the RoundUp Ready gene.

This all could have major implications for the US economy. In 2012, exported wheat represented a gross sum of $18.1 billion, with 90 percent of Oregon's wheat exported abroad. Mike Adams of Natural News says that all wheat produced in the US will now be heavily scrutinized and possibly even rejected by other nations that traditionally import US wheat. This obviously has enormous economic implications for US farmers and agriculture. Adams argues that genetic experiments which 'escaped' into commercial wheat fields could devastate US wheat farmers. The floor could drop out on wheat prices, and there may well be a huge backlash against the USDA by US farmers who stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

Much of the problem lies with the USDA, which gave the go ahead for open-field GMO experiments - little wonder that the USDA is regarded by many as the official cheer-leader for the GM sector.

Genetically modified wheat may be the tip of the iceberg, given the prevalence of open-field trials regarding various other crops and the not so hidden agenda behind such trials. As reported in the Toronto Star back in January 2001, Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, stated that the hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded with genetically modified organisms that there's nothing you can do about it - people just sort of surrender.

None of this would be possible without the ability of the GM sector to corrupt state machinery in order to further its commercial interests. Writing on Rense.com, Rich Murray has highlighted how top people from the GM sector have moved with ease to take up positions with various US government bodies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration. Writer and researcher William F Engdahl describes a similar effect in Europe, noting the links between the GMO sector and the European Food Safety Authority.

India appears to be no different. Immediately after a moratorium on BT Brinjal was announced in 2010, a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill suddenly emerged. The BRAI Bill could not be passed in 2010 and 2011 because of objections, but it has surfaced again as a 2013 Bill. In the June edition of Ki Kisan Awaaz, Vandana Shiva argues that it not so much constitutes a Biotechnology Regulation  Act, but a Biotechnology Deregulation Act, designed to dismantle the existing bio-safety regulation and give the green-light to the GM sector to press ahead with its agenda in the country. By highlighting the GM sector interests behind the proposed legislation, Shiva says that the goal is to give the sector's corporations immunity by freeing them of courts and democratic control under India's federal structure. It is, in effect, 'Monsanto's Protection Act'.

Whatever the implications of such legislation, we are right to be suspicious given the GM sector's ability to infiltrate and contaminate key government bodies, nowhere more so than in the US. And the result? Look no further than the case of wheat and the agenda of contamination behind open-field testing. It will not only be consumers who 'pay the price' for corporate duplicity, in terms of health dangers, but, quite literally, US farmers too.

Thursday 18 April 2013

Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen


The Twelve Most Awful Products Made By Monsanto

By JacobSloan on in News


Via GMO Awareness, it may seem cartoonish to brand one company as an evil empire reaping misery over the course of a century, but it’s hard not to when they have created artificial sugar substitutes, DDT, Agent Orange, nuclear weapons, PCBs, and Bovine Growth Hormone:
When you take a moment to reflect on the history of product development at Monsanto, what do you find? Here are twelve products that Monsanto has brought to market:
1. Saccharin. John Francisco Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works with the goal of producing saccharin for Coca-Cola. Studies performed during the early 1970s showed that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice.
2. PCBs. During the early 1920s, Monsanto began expanding their chemical production into polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to produce coolant fluids for electrical transformers and motors. Fifty years later, the EPA published a report citing PCBs as the cause of cancer in animals, with additional evidence that they can cause cancer in humans. Nearly 30 years after PCBs have been banned from the U.S., they are still showing up in the blood of pregnant women, as reported in a 2011 study.
3. Polystyrene. In 1941, Monsanto began focusing on plastics and synthetic polystyrene, which is still widely used in food packaging and ranked 5th in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
4. Atom bomb and nuclear weapons. Shortly after acquiring Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto turned this division into their Central Research Department. Between 1943 to 1945, this department coordinated key production efforts of the Manhattan Project.
5. DDT. In 1944, Monsanto became one of the first manufacturers of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. In 1972, DDT was banned throughout the U.S.
Read the rest at GMO Awareness.

Sunday 14 April 2013

4
Annex 1: Government of Ghana Key Policy Commitments
SEE: Ghana_web.pdf http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Ghana_web.pdf 

Policy Indicators
 Improved score on Doing Business Index
 Increased $ value of new private-sector investment in the agricultural sector
 % increase in private investment in commercial production and sale of seeds

Objective
Framework Policy Actions
Timeline
Establish policy that enables theprivate sector to develop,commercialize, and use improved inputs to increase smallholder productivity and incomes
1.
Regulations developed to implement the new seed law, specifically:
Seed registry system established.
Protocols for variety testing, release and registration, authorization to conduct field inspections, seed sampling, and seed testing developed.
Standards for seed classification and certification established. June 2013
2.
New agricultural input policy for fertilizer and certified seed use developed that includes:
Clearly defined role of government in fertilizer and seed marketing;
Clearly defined role of government’s CSIR and Grains & Legumes Board; and
Defined role of private sector in breeding. December 2013
Create a secure investment climate for investors by reducing transaction costs and risks
3.
Database of suitable land for investors established*
1,000 ha registered December 2013
4,500 ha registered December 2014
10,000 ha registered December 2015
4.
Pilot model lease agreements** for 5,000 ha of land in database established. December 2015
5.
Clear procedures to channel investor interest (including that related to value-added agricultural processing) to appropriate agencies*** completed. December 2013
Support transparent, inclusive, evidence-based policy formulation process based on quality data and sound evidence that leads to increased investment in agriculture
6.
New Ghana Agricultural Production Survey (GAPS)stood up:
Piloted data release July 2012
2nd phase completed September 2013
New national agriculture survey data released May 2014
7.
Private sector representatives of key grain value chains appointed to the MOFA Post HarvestCommittee.**** December 2013
* This database is essentially a ‘land bank’ but in the Ghanaian context it’s a land database. In the case of land under traditional ownership, due diligence and sensitization of surrounding communities will promote an understanding of the rights and obligations from subsequent lease agreements.
**For outgrower schemes, contract farming, etc.
*** To provide a transparent and structured way for investors of all types to avoid extra transaction costs and need to reduce their perceived risk of approaching government to manage access to, and security of land.
**** This is a recommendation made by the private sector. This committee establishes the floor price for the National Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO)

Farmers and Consumers V. Monsanto: David Meet Goliath


Farmers and Consumers V. Monsanto: David Meet Goliath | Common Dreams https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/08-7

G8 Cooperation Framework to Support the “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” in Ghana


Ghana New Alliance Cooperation Framework

September 25th, 2012
Download the Country Cooperation Framework for Ghana (pdf, 945kb), which describes the vision for partnership and mutual commitments between the the Government of Ghana, donors, and the private sector, as part of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

1
G8 Cooperation Framework to Support the “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” in Ghana
Three years after the G8 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy, the international community recognizes the importance of food security to development, inclusive economic growth and the dignity of all
women and men. In that spirit, we welcome the success of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) in demonstrating African ownership and leadership,
its call for expanded public and private investment in agriculture and desire to build on the
progress that African governments have made in advancing a vision for agricultural
development in Africa. 
Ghana is making great strides in public-private partnership in agricultural growth, exemplified
by the development of its Ghana Commercial Agriculture Program. This strategic investment
blueprint is a model for inclusive and strategic collaboration among government, donors and
the private sector. Together, the Government of Ghana and the G8 members, commit to the “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” and to working together to generate greater private investment in agricultural development, scale innovation, achieve sustainable food security outcomes, reduce poverty and end hunger. As partners, we commit ourselves to the following principles and actions: 
Support of CAADP Country Compacts
The G8 members, consistent with commitments made at L’Aquila, reaffirm their intention toalign their agricultural financial and technical support with the priorities of the CAADP National Investment Plan for Agriculture and Food Security (referred to in Ghana as the Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan or METASIP), in such a manner as to accelerate implementation of the METASIP and in conjunction with commitments made by the Government of Ghana. Consistent with the foregoing, the G8 members recognize the value of predictability of donor activities including financial and technical support over a sustained period of time, as set out in Annex 2. 
The G8 members intend to provide support within the agriculture sector to accelerate implementation of the METASIP, including through the Grow Africa platform, with the overall goal of facilitating increases in private investment and scaling innovation. The G8 members intend to engage the relevant agencies of their member governments and also to bring to bear appropriate enabling actions to accelerate progress in the areas of finance and markets, science and technology, and risk management. To address the underlying causes of food insecurity, the G8 members intend to focus key resources and other contributions on high-priority, high-impact investments within the METASIP and in particular on the development of the 2Government of Ghana’s priority area of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority region of northern Ghana and other deprived areas.
Key Policy Commitments
The Government of Ghana intends to pursue the policy goals set out below in order to build domestic and international private sector confidence to increase agricultural investment significantly, with the overall goal of reducing poverty and ending hunger. The Government of Ghana intends to improve incentives for private sector investment in agriculture, in particular, taking actions to facilitate inclusive access to and productive use of land; developing and implementing domestic seed regulations that encourage increased private sector involvement in this area; and supporting transparent inclusive, evidence-based policy formulation (see Annex 1).
The Government of Ghana reaffirms its intention to provide the human and financial resources and the mechanisms for dialogue with the private sector, farmers and other stakeholders, and across government ministries that are required for the achievement of tangible and sustainable outcomes, the acceleration of Ghana’s development, and the delivery of tangible benefits to smallholder farmers, including women.
The Government of Ghana reaffirms its commitment to mainstream nutrition in all food security and agriculture-related programs.
Private Sector Engagement
Private sector representatives have communicated that they intend to invest in the agriculture sector in Ghana in support of the CAADP National Investment Plan for Agriculture and Food Security (the METASIP), through in Letters of Intent that they will prepare and execute, and intend to advise, shape, and participate in broad, inclusive and sustained private sector consultative mechanisms with the host government (see Annex 3).
Shared Responsibilities
The G8 members, the Government of Ghana and the private sector, confirm their intention to take account of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (“the Voluntary Guidelines”) adopted by the Committee on World Food Security in May 2012, as well as the Principles of Responsible Agricultural Investment (PRAI) produced by several international organizations and endorsed by among others, the G8 and G20, which are undergoing a consultative process through the Committee on World Food Security on PRAI. In addition, they intend to work

4 Annex 1:
Government of Ghana Key Policy Commitments
Policy Indicators
 Improved score on Doing Business Index
 Increased $ value of new private-sector investment in the agricultural sector
 % increase in private investment in commercial production and sale of seeds

Objective
Framework Policy Actions
Timeline
Establish policy that enables the private sector to develop, commercialize, and use improved inputs to increase smallholder productivity and incomes
1. Regulations developed to implement the new seed law, specifically: Seed registry system established. Protocols for variety testing, release and registration, authorization to conduct field inspections, seed sampling, and seed testing developed. Standards for seed classification and certification established. June 2013
2. New agricultural input policy for fertilizer and certified seed use developed that includes:Clearly defined role of government in fertilizer and seed marketing; Clearly defined role of government’s CSIR and Grains & Legumes Board; and Defined role of private sector in breeding. December 2013Create a secure investment climate for investors by reducing transaction costs and risksDatabase of suitable land for investors established*
1,000 ha registered December 2013
4,500 ha registered December 2014
10,000 ha registered December 2015

.Pilot model lease agreements** for 5,000 ha of land in database established.December 2015.Clear procedures to channel investor interest (including that related to value-added agricultural processing) to appropriate agencies*** completed. December 2013
Support transparent, inclusive, evidence-based policy formulation process based on quality data and sound evidence that leads to increased investment in agriculture
6. New Ghana Agricultural Production Survey (GAPS)stood up:
Piloted data release July 2012
2nd phase completed September 2013
New national agriculture survey data released May 2014
7. Private sector representatives of key grain value chains appointed to the MOFA Post HarvestCommittee.**** December 2013
* This database is essentially a ‘land bank’ but in the Ghanaian context it’s a land database. In the case of land under traditional ownership, due diligence and
sensitization of surrounding communities will promote an understanding of the rights and obligations from subsequent lease agreements.
**For outgrower schemes, contract farming, etc.
*** To provide a transparent and structured way for investors of all types to avoid extra transaction costs and need to reduce their perceived risk of approaching government to manage access to, and security of land.
**** This is a recommendation made by the private sector. This committee establishes the floor price for the National Buffer Stock Company (NAFCO)