By Philip Bereano,
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The Gates Foundation exemplifies “philanthrocapitalism,” a practice that uses market-driven approaches to address social issues. Philip Bereano argues this approach is problematic, as markets often fail to achieve socially constructive outcomes.
At the 2016 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, an “Online Forum on Synthetic Biology” was established in response to concerns from Global South nations and civil society organizations. Synthetic biology, especially gene drives, offers significant potential but also poses risks. However, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the Gates Foundation and other entities tried to influence the forum with industry-aligned scientists.
In 2017, the Gates Foundation granted $1.6 million to Emerging Ag Inc., a PR firm for agribusiness and biotech companies, to promote gene drive applications. This effort aims to sway the UN Forum and oppose a moratorium on these technologies. The Gates Foundation’s involvement raises concerns due to its strong advocacy for genetic engineering as a solution for global hunger, despite limited evidence of its effectiveness.
From 2009 to 2011, the Gates Foundation spent nearly $500 million on African agricultural development, pushing high-tech, capitalist approaches. This focus on genetically engineered crops and industrial agriculture contrasts with recommendations from organizations like the World Bank and the UN, which support agroecological methods as more sustainable solutions.
Bill Gates’ belief in high-tech solutions for social problems aligns with neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization. The Foundation’s grants often support these ideologies, neglecting local priorities and sustainable practices. Despite claims of promoting agroecology, many of the Foundation’s initiatives, such as a $10 million grant to Conservation International, lack genuine agroecological principles and favor top-down technocratic approaches.
Critics argue that the Gates Foundation’s strategies undermine traditional farming practices and promote corporate interests. African farmers and movements for food sovereignty resist these impositions, advocating for agroecological farming and greater respect for their knowledge and autonomy.
The Gates Foundation’s significant influence on global development policies highlights the tension between philanthropy and justice. As Gates’ wealth continues to grow, so does the need for a more consultative and equitable approach to agricultural development in Africa. African farmers call for genuine collaboration and support for agroecological methods that prioritize sustainability and local needs.
