• In January 2009, FoE Indonesia sent a complaint to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, following the Australian government’s failure to fulfil a promise to respond directly to Indonesian organizations challenging the activities of Australian mining companies. FoE Indonesia has compiled a dossier detailing the involvement of numerous Australian mining companies in environmental destruction and human rights violations.

• In February 2009, communities in Guatemala asked the legislature and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to issue a moratorium on mining licenses of all types, until reforms to the Mining Act are agreed with them. Social organizations in the affected municipalities claim that current amendments to the document do not provide for community interests. 

• Also in February, and after years of being marginalized in relation to decisions about their ancestral lands, the Subanon people on Mindanao island came another step closer to asserting control over their territory. Their lands are currently being exploited by TVI Resource Development Phils (TVIRDI), a subsidiary of Canadian mining company TVI Pacific. Around 20 Subanon Indigenous People and farmers living within the TVIRDI mining area in Mount Canatuan, the Subanon tribe’s sacred site, halted blasting and drilling activities at the Canadian company’s open-pit mining operation, after a successful occupation of the site. 

• In March 2009, the Ghana National Coalition on Mining, a group of communities affected by mining in Ghana and civil society organizations including FoE Ghana, opposed the Ghanaian Environmental Protection Agency, which had granted environmental permits to Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and Adamus Resources to conduct surface gold mining activities. 

• In September 2009, FoE Hungary published their first annual alternative report on the Hungarian Oil Company (MOL). The report held a mirror up to the company’s annual report and assessed the company’s activities in 2008. After examining company data, the authors gave examples showing that the company’s practices do not actually match up to its rhetoric. 

• Also in September, FoE Costa Rica, together with and as part of Costa Rica’s popular movement, participated in a visit to mining company Crucitas, organized by the Supreme Court of Costa Rica, which had suspended Crucitas’s mining permit. There is a risk that the Supreme Court will favor the mining company, in which case FoE Costa Rica plans more mobilizations across the country, to stop this mining company restarting its activities.

• Again in September, FoE Guatemala organized an international mission to verify violations of human, environmental and economic rights by mining transnational corporations operating in Guatemala, such as GoldCorp. The aim of the mission was to ensure that the voices of victims, who are criminalized in Guatemala, can be heard at the international level. Participants included FoE Uruguay, FoE El Salvador, and FoE Costa Rica, together with people from Amnesty International and others. 

Building strong networks and alliances against the mining and extractive industries is also a priority for the RMOG Program. For example, a new network in Colombia, the Colombian Network Against Mining, has been established to challenge transnational corporations operating in Colombia with the support of the Colombian government. One of the first acts of this network was to support the demands of workers and the population struggling against British Petroleum in Tauramena, Colombia.

Many other critical activities were also undertaken by the Federation in 2009. For example:

• In Nigeria, the Second National Consultation on the Environment, 25 - 26 November 2009, saw civil society leaders, community-based organizations, civil society organizations, development experts, academia, legal practitioners, the media and representatives of government agencies come together to consider a post-petroleum Nigeria. The event was organized by FoE Nigeria in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Environment.

• FoE Philippines and Alyansa Tigil Mina co-hosted a discussion on "Tracing the Gold, Tracing the Money," in Cagayan de Oro City on 29 June. The event was designed to give participants the knowledge and skills they need to find out how mining companies finance their activities and where they sell their products. This kind of research often reveals excellent intervention points for advocates wanting to stop mining operations in their localities.

• A new report from FoE Netherlands, "Mining Matters," which was published in June 2009, reviewed practices used in mining tin (in Indonesia, Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burma), bauxite (Guinea and Jamaica), and copper (Chile, Peru, Zambia and Indonesia (Grasberg)). It also examined the policies of seven companies using imported metals in the Netherlands.

• Security forces arrested the director of FoE Indonesia and the Head of FoE Indonesia's Regional Department during a peaceful protest organized by FoE Indonesia and other NGOs together with fisherfolk organizations. The groups organized an event parallel to the World Ocean Conference (WOC) and Coal Triangle Summit 2009 which was held in Manado, Indonesia, 11-14 May. The peoples’ gathering was to draw the attention of WOC to small fisherfolks’ concerns – especially their call to ban the dumping of tailing minings into the sea - and to demand that these concerns be put on the WOC’s agenda.

• In 2009 Young FoE Norway’s priority campaign was against oil drilling off the beautiful Lofoten Islands, home to the world’s largest stock of cod and biggest cold water coral reef. They started several local groups in a network called "O`olkaction against oil drilling outside the Lofoten Islands." They also took a group of representatives from political youth parties out to the Lofoten Islands for one week, to highlight the fact that there are other possibilities besides drilling for oil in Northern Norway. 

• FoE France has published a synthesis report "Public subsidies to fossil fuels in France and the European Union," which reveals that the wealthy oil industry benefited from French subsidies of over €400 million between 2004 and 2008, mainly in the form of export guarantees. FoE’s research also shows that €6 billion of European money has been given to the fossil fuel industry over the past five years. 

The main areas of work of the program are:

• Community Resistance
• Campaign Against Corporations
• Policies and Mechanisms that Promote Mining, Oil and Gas
• Decreasing Consumption to Stop Demand for Mining, Oil and Gas

coordinators and participants

Co-coordinator: Natalia Atz Sunuc, FoE Guatemala
Co-coordinator: Romel Cardenas de Vera, FoE Philippines

The RMOG steering group includes:

• For Africa, Chima Williams, FoE Nigeria
• For APac, Natalie Lowrey, Australia
• For ATALC, Andres Idarraga, Colombia
• For Europe, Geert Ritsema, Netherlands
• For North America, Adina Matisoff, FoE USA

This is a new FoEI program and the co-coordinators and steering group are still in the processing of developing and implementing a fully-fledged strategy and workplan. Groups that have expressed an interest in participating include: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, El Salvador, FoE Europe, EWNI, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo and the US.

Additionally, we challenged false publicity about the potential of jatropha, and other plants that might be used for agrofuel production. In particular, FoE Africa groups and others set out to research the extent to which agrofuels are expanding across Africa, through a literature review, on-the-ground observation, and interviews with government officials, community leaders, local authorities, farmers and farmers’ organizations, civil society groups and academics. The resulting report considers the state of agrofuels production in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It records details, where available, on incoming investment, key companies, case studies, issues relating to land and legal rights, and environmental impact assessments. It also delves into government and state policies on agrofuels promotion and energy self-sufficiency.

The FoE Europe campaign on agrofuels was selected by the European Parliament Magazine as the most effective NGO campaign, specifically because of our high-visibility creative actions organized in collaboration with groups from all our regions. Improvements to our web site, and investments in communications in FoE Europe, allowed us to mobilize 47,000 people in May to participate in a poll by EC President Barroso, which changed the poll from 95% in favor of the EU's biofuels target to 89% against, in just three days.

FoEI also organized two speakers’ tours (in May and December 2008) for leaders from the South, in order to raise awareness in Europe about the devastating impacts of growing crops to produce agrofuels. We also organized an action in front of the Brazilian embassy in Brussels to protest against their agrofuels policies, in collaboration with La Via Campesina and FIAN (Face It Act Now – for the right to food). The speakers took part in lobby meetings to demand an end to the EU 10% biofuels target, with Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission. Similar meetings were organized with national parliaments in France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. The visiting speakers also lectured at universities in Brussels, Grenoble, Leuven, Montpellier, and the UNDP University in Namur. They received good media coverage, including through outlets such as Télé Grenoble, Midi Libre, France 3 TV, Planète Libre Magazine, national TV RFO, Radio Campus in Belgium, Panoramica magazine, ANP Netherlands, Agrarisch Dagblad, and Agripress Belgium.

When the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) met in Buenos Aires, FoEI helped  gathering civil society from producer countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) as well as importing countries in the EU, to protest against the use of ‘sustainable soy’ certification schemes, which are bound to fail because they do not address the overall expansion of monoculture plantations to produce increasing quantities of agrofuels. Similar round-table approaches around the world have completely failed to address the major social and environmental impacts of industrial-scale soy cultivation and actually serve to frustrate real solutions.

Photo credits: FoE Brazil

During the past two years, agrofuels have been a top advocacy priority for the federation, cutting across almost all of our program areas. During this period, more than 35 FoEI groups in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, England Wales & N Ireland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Scotland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay and US, worked in solidarity to achieve this goal.

accomplishments

We received a lot of press attention and succeeded in helping to shift public opinion on agrofuels, not just in Europe but throughout producer countries. The fact that increasing attention has been paid to food production, because of the global food crisis, meant that we were presented with an important opportunity to raise concerns about competition between crops for food and crops for fuel (although we approached this issue cautiously as we believe that the food crisis is driven by many significant factors, including speculation in agricultural commodities, and false solutions such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and increased dependence on artificial inputs to agriculture).

Our various activities also reinforced national and regional alliances with social movements fighting for food sovereignty and resisting large scale monocultures, raised FoEI’s profile in debates about energy and climate justice, and contributed to the implementation of FoEI’s Agrofuels campaign internationally.

FoEI has also consolidated the joint work with social movements and organizations around Agribusiness. This will allow the Federation to strengthen their resistance strategies, as well as the promotion of solutions, throughout the joint fight with our allies.

FoE groups have produced materials (documented studies, briefings, fact sheets and websites in different languages, and short films) and have made strategic use of the internet for media outreach and advocacy work to fight corporate control over food systems. This corporate control includes monopolistic technologies such as the production and commercialization of GMOs, agrofuels, industrial fishing and aquaculture. For example:

• FoE EWNI’s Food Chain Campaign and report “What's feeding our food?” (December 2008), which highlights the environmental and social impacts of the intensive livestock sector.
• FoE Australia’s Real Food Campaign.
• FoE Uruguay’s influential research work and publications on agribusiness such as: “Agronegocios Ltda. Nuevas modalidades de colonialismo en el Cono Sur de América Latina”; and their documentary: Soberanía Alimentaria en marcha. Recuperación del Molino Santa Rosa.
• The report “Malaysian palm oil - green gold or green wash?” (October 2008), which reveals that Malaysian palm oil exported for use in food, biofuels and cosmetics is far from 'green', contrary to claims by Malaysian palm oil producers.
  

These materials are helping to mobilize people; they help European consumers to make informed choices; help to ensure that social and environmental issues are taken into account by companies; mobilize the public and decision-makers to support changes that will help to build a more equitable North-South relationship in a key area affecting biodiversity, food security and poverty reduction; and contribute to the debate about Europe’s overall levels of consumption.

The EU is one of the world’s biggest importers of agriculture commodities, to supply a range of needs, from the food on our plates to animal feed for our livestock. In addition, in response to demands to reduce dependence on oil imports, and in order to minimize climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions, EU and national energy policies are now resulting in the rapid increase of a new commodity – agrofuels.

This has raised new and complex challenges for developing countries that are expanding agricultural production to meet Europe’s demand. In 2008, FoE groups in Europe (Austria Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England Wales & N Ireland, Estonia, France, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain) developed a campaign called “Feeding and Fuelling Europe” to raise public awareness in the EU about the impacts of the food commodities trade, on food security, rural livelihoods and the environment in developing countries. The campaign provides opportunities, solutions and recommendations for citizens, policy makers and industry. The work is coordinated with national campaign activities aimed at fighting agribusiness and promoting food sovereignty in FoE groups in Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines), Africa (Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone) and Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay).

These reports were very controversial as far as industry participants were concerned, and Syngenta and others walked out of the process in December. The final report was remarkably strong about the need for a radical change in agriculture, and did not promote genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It addressed the need to strengthen regional markets and protecting natural resources; the importance of traditional knowledge; diversity; agro-ecology; and the role of women in agriculture. It recognized the threats from agrofuels; GMOs; intellectual property rights rules; and the model of industrial agriculture. In short it called for more Food Sovereignty! The report was supported by 58 governments.

Europe continued to be an essentially GMO-free zone, which is a very important achievement for the European people, but also for other regions in the world. The food price crisis was cleverly used to try and persuade the EU to weaken its GMO laws and therefore get other regions of the world to grow more kinds of GMOs. FoE groups in Europe researched the issue and were able to prove that lobby groups had manipulated the facts. While this is an important success, however, we need to continue to monitor the process and ensure that laws aren’t weakened behind closed doors.

what happened?

Members of FoE Africa from Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Nigeria, Mauritius, Tunisia and Swaziland met in July in Accra, Ghana, to review issues that confront the African environment. A particular focus was placed on the current food crisis and agrofuels. The groups released a statement deploring the characterisation of Africa as a chronically hungry continent; and rejected the projection of the continent as an emblem of poverty and stagnation and thus as a continent dependent on food aid.

Matching these concerns, FoE Africa groups and others set out to research the extent of agrofuels expansion across Africa, through a literature review, on-the-ground observation, and interviews with government officials, community leaders, local authorities, farmers and farmers’ organizations, civil society groups and academics.

The report considers the state of agrofuels production in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It records details, where available, on incoming investment, key companies, case studies, issues relating to land and legal rights, and environmental impact assessments. It also delves into government and state policies on agrofuels promotion and energy self-sufficiency.

what was learned?

Although data was sometimes hard to acquire, this first report, ‘Corporate Push of Agrofuels in Africa’, clearly corroborates that there is a very real agrofuels ‘boom’ in Africa. To take just one example, in Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and other countries, staple food crops such as cassava, corn, groundnuts, sorghum and sweet potatoes, are being used or are being proposed to be used to produce bio ethanol.

The report provides clear evidence that when it comes to agrofuels most African governments are intent on promoting the industry, and attracting foreign investment to do so, even though on-the-ground evidence shows that:

• there is little public understanding of the issue;
• farmers are often tied to monopolies;
• forced resettlement, land grabbing and displacement from traditional lands are common;
• food importing nations tend to increase their reliance on food imports;
• ethanol production affects food prices; and
• agrofuels production leads to deforestation and biodiversity losses.

what changed?

With this more detailed picture of what is really happening in Africa, concerned organizations are now able to make a much clearer assessment of the risks associated with the agrofuels ‘boom’. Local communities and Indigneous Peoples are also in a better position to engage in the debate on agrofuels, and make informed decisions about the use of their lands and territories.

what next?

This information will be used by FoE Africa groups and others to develop positions and campaigns relating to agrofuels production at the national level. Agrofuels activities are already underway, for example, in Nigeria, Togo, Swaziland and South Africa.  It will also be shared with other civil society organizations and local communities.

Additional information can be found at http://www.eraction.org/publications/presentations/The-Agrofuels-debate-in-Africa.pdf

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs (dgis)

"The use of lands in Africa as testing grounds for crops to feed machines instead of man, will rob farmers of land and will worsen the already precarious hunger situation on the continent. The only solution to hunger is for African governments to initiate and implement policies that guarantees protection for farmers to enhance pro-poor food production.” Said Nnimmo Bassey, from FoE Nigeria.

In Nigeria, this assault on staple foods is being promoted by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). There are plans to build ethanol production plants across the country, and operators will be exempt from duties and taxes on agrofuel imports and exports.

what happened?

First, Friends of the Earth Nigeria / Environmental Rights Action investigated the on-the-ground impacts of agrofuels production in Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. This was no easy task, since government officials were reluctant or refused to disclose relevant information, and communities and agrofuels plantations were often in remote areas.

FoE Nigeria’s campaigners improved their knowledge about agofuels expansion and its real-life consequences. They observed that large-scale agrofuels cultivation in the region is already leading to the clearing of trees, destruction of ecosystems and radical changes in agriculture (which will impact food prices). The communities contacted also learned about the governments’ intention to convert further large tracts of arable land to fuel crops cultivation.

Then a lively regional convention on agrofuels was held in Abuja, Nigeria, entitled ‘Food is for People not Machines’. This revealed shared concerns about the impact that agrofuels cultivation could have on food sovereignty, the availability of safe and heathy food, and farmers’ rights to secure and sustainable livelihoods free of the threat of genetic contamination. These concerns were clearly shared by some of the government officials present, including a senator who subsequently requested more information and materials to aid decision-making.

The conference was reported by a wide range of media, reaching an audience of over 60 million people in West Africa, and inspired new alliances and networks committed to stemming the tide of agrofuels.

what next?

The potential benefits claimed by those in favour of agrofuels are a myth that could imperil the African continent. The real beneficiaries are corporate interests and developed nations that strive to protect their own environment. Yet there is a vast information gap that still needs to be breached: a significant number of people, in Africa and in importing countries, remain unaware of the impacts of agrofuels.

Biofuels policy development in various African countries needs be opened up for public scrutiny and debate. In Nigeria, for example, there are plans to engage the government of Ekiti State in a learning encounter, to start to lift the ignorance underpinning government decision-making.  A documentary of the Abuja conference will also be published and broadcast.

report:

• A report entitled “Corporate Push of Agrofuels in Africa” outlines the results.
  

with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs (dgis)

In 2008, we conducted many activities to support the development of our member groups, as we understand that the strength of FoEI lies in the strength of our member organizations, their capacity to win victories at the local and national level, relate their struggles in a global context, and act in solidarity with fellow member groups in other countries and across regions.

Our Membership Support Fund seeks to pool resources and share them across FoE member groups for the following objectives: network development, capacity building, strengthening national campaigns, and increasing participation in international campaigns.

In 2008, we distributed 1.22 million Euros to 35 of our members: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, El Salvador, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Palestina, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo and Uruguay.

In addition to this fund, other membership support activities in 2008 included facilitation and accompaniment of regional development, particularly in Asia Pacific and Africa. FoEI provided strategic support and facilitation assistance during regional meetings and in setting up regional structures, as well as one-on-one support to member groups in those regions to encourage their participation in the international federation. 

Other areas of membership development are the facilitation of relationship building among member groups across regions; helping to overcome language barriers through timely translations; creating spaces for sharing experiences, such as exchanges and gatherings; and ensuring that member groups are present in the federation and don't fall off the map.

Access to safe water is a basic right. Yet in Freetown this right is not being met by the current water supplier, the cash-strapped, state-owned Guma Valley Water Company (GVWC), its infrastructure eroded after years of war. However, privatisation, an option pushed on the country by the World Bank, IMF and aid agencies like the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), is not the solution favoured by civil society groups. “We are very concerned about the government’s intention to privatise … when water is an essential resource for the survival of poor people,” said Olatunde Johnson of Friends of the Earth Sierra Leone.

For this project, FoE Sierra Leone sought to have the DFID cease its support for water privatisation in Sierra Leone. They also aimed to facilitate the preparation of national water and sanitation policy, and water regulation.

what happened: FoE Sierra Leone participated in consultations with decision makers, government officials, paramount chiefs and local council village heads. They also took part in media interviews and radio discussions, to inform people from all walks of life on how the GVWC could strengthen its performance without having to be privatised.

FoE Sierra Leone, along with other civil society groups, lobbied the government, DFID and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The latter is a consultancy employed by the DFID to advise Sierra Leone’s National Commission for Privatisation (NCP), ostensibly on how to privatise the GVWC. FoE Sierra Leone and civil society groups also worked with the NCP on a proposed national water and sanitation policy, and set up an integrated and participatory approach for water resource planning, management and development.

The group also worked on and facilitated plans to establish an energy and water utilities regulatory authority. And finally, FoE Sierra Leone carried out a comprehensive survey of Freetown’s water supplies.

what is changing: The above activities enabled FoE Sierra Leone to provide evidence-based results on Freetown’s water sector and to propose recommendations for reform options, soundly based on their broad consultations with water users in the Guma Valley system. The findings are not only key to designing policy, they are also vital to inform the public’s view as they seek a system to meet their need and guarantee their rights.

The project helped improve the GVWC’s performance through a comprehensive performance contract setup by the NCP. The NCP and GVWC also aimed to identify activities which could be carried out through private-sector involvement in GVWC operations, such as borehole drilling; meter connections and repairs, water bill distribution, stand pipe management, spare parts supply and distribution. Another result of the project will be review studies on the GVWC investment and expansion plans to increase its supply of water from additional sources.

what we learned: FoE Sierra Leone’s work revealed that wider civil society is not engaged in the dialogue around planned reform of the GVWC. A survey conducted by the group indicates the vast majority of people in affected communities knew little or nothing about government policy on water supply.

To change this, and for the sake of accountability and transparency, it will be vital to generate some form of public debate/consultations about the issue and create the necessary awareness, participation and ownership; and thereby a guarantee of people’s stake in the decision-making process.

what next: An important problem FoE Sierra Leone faces is lack of transparency in the consultation process with the government and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Although the privatisation agenda was not articulated in this process, it was nonetheless reflected in their final report. Unfortunately this seems to suggest, quite wrongly, that privatisation has the tacit support of civil society. Thus there is need for further debate, and for the Government of Sierra Leone to clarify its position on this.


with thanks to our funders: the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

This threat is exacerbated by a lack of legal, administrative and infrastructural frameworks to resist or regulate these products. For example, Cameroon has had biosafety legislation in place since 2003, but these laws are too weak to prevent GMOs’ entry. In Swaziland, the gap left by famine and a complete regulatory vacuum is filling up with donated food aid containing GMOs. In addition, awareness amongst the public about GMOs and the risks they pose is, generally speaking, low in this region.

Friends of the Earth Cameroon (Centre for Environment and Development), Ghana, Mali (Guamina), Nigeria (Environmental Rights Action), Sierra Leone, Togo and Swaziland (Yonge Nawe Environmental Action Group) aimed to address this risk because, as Edith Abilogo of FoE Cameroon said, “the need for measures to control, inspect and detect GMOs cannot be overemphasised.”

what happened: Most groups conducted testing for GMOs on samples of crops and food, including those sourced from food aid. In addition, some groups, such as Nigeria and Swaziland, developed regimes to build capacity for further testing in future.

As a result, many of the groups found GMOs in their food supply. For example, FoE Nigeria tested a total of 108 samples selected from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ghana; of these, six samples from Nigeria and one from Ghana were contaminated with GMOs. According to FoE Nigeria, “These results obtained from the project underscore the fact that the African continent has become a target for contamination.”

Some groups, including FoE Cameroon, Nigeria, Ghana and Swaziland used their testing results to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the current laws and to influence legislation, and carried out lobbying with parliamentarians and policy makers. Many of the groups also used these test findings as an opportunity for media work, to counter some governments’ denial of GMOs in their food supply.

The groups also sought to raise awareness by holding workshops, seminars, courses, meetings and even conferences about the risks posed by GMOs, in both rural and urban areas. FoE Nigeria also started a newsletter about food, agriculture and GMOs titled “hot plate”. FoE Ghana developed a brochure on GMOs, FoE Swaziland created a 30-minute documentary and radio program, and FoE Cameroon produced a very successful cartoon book for youth. FoE Sierra Leone made use of television, radio and even public wall murals for its campaign.

Although FoE Mali didn’t carry out GMO testing, it did conduct workshops to generate debate amongst all sectors of civil society, to allow them to better understand GMOs’ risks and international laws that govern them.

what is changing: Most groups reported that public awareness on GMOs had increased among the grassroots, opinion leaders, community leaders, farmers and market women; and that grassroots resistance to GMOs was building up. Sustainable agriculture was encouraged, and community leaders were empowered to make informed technological choices.

FoE Mali’s awareness-raising workshops successfully conveyed this complex subject to participants. The ensuing debates helped the group formulate an action plan, and government officers committed themselves to support peasant organizations as this action plan is implemented.

FoE Swaziland’s new media productions also raised the profile of this issue, and a TV station re-ran their documentary for free due to overwhelming popular demand. The group also provided input on a legal framework for biosafety, which was incorporated into regulation awaiting parliamentary approval.

FoE Cameroon succeeded in one of its main objectives: using the law to stop the spread of GMOs by pushing their government to elaborate its existing regulation. Furthermore, their local media are now very active in raising people’s awareness on GMO risks.

FoE Ghana also achieved a major success, bringing inadequacies with Ghana’s draft Biosafety Bill to the fore at their workshop for policy makers and parliamentarians. As a result, civil society, led by FoE Ghana and another NGO, has been asked by the government to present its concerns about the draft Biosafety Bill.

FoE Nigeria’s project was very effective, and government officials attending their conference, “promised to carry the people along in the Biosaftey Bill making process.” The group added that, “There has been huge press coverage of the project,” with FoE Nigeria now seen as a major player on the issue as a voice of the people.

FoE Sierra Leone also successfully used its GMO testing to persuade the government to pledge support for local farmers and promote food security, instead of relying on food aid. Their government has also set up a strict port and boarder post to track down illegal imports of rice and other food items.

Friends of the Earth Ghana and Friends of the Earth Togo received funding to carry out joint capacity building, networking and campaigning on GMOs. Their goal was to protect traditional agriculture and the integrity of biodiversity through the establishment of responsible policy that discourages GMO introduction and ensures food security, food sovereignty and farmers’ rights to livelihoods. They also aimed to increase the effectiveness of the GMO campaign of Friends of the Earth International in terms of sustainable development targets and poverty reduction.

Most groups reported that their projects built up alliances with civil society, target groups and communities. Their organisations’ capacity to work on GMOs, biosafety, food and agricultural issues was also strengthened.

what we learned: One challenge, cited by FoE Cameroon, is visually demonstrating the differences between GM and conventional crops; they found people were only convinced when shown via their GMO testing regime. FoE Nigeria said that despite their campaign, a significant proportion of society is still unaware of GMOs. In Ghana, campaigners faced the challenge of conveying complex GMO information to mostly illiterate farmers and market women.

FoE Nigeria also reasoned that the problem lies not just with corporations, but with their public bodies’ weak law enforcement attitude and officials’ possible collusion. The group implored government to carry out proper screening procedures to rule out GM imports.

In countries such as Ghana, which must grapple with GMOs in food aid, the groups face the additional challenge of undoing extensive, well-financed public relations work of agencies such as USAID, which promote GMOs. In a similar way, industry collaboration with African governments to promote GMOs further adds to the groups’ daunting task of grassroots education.

what next: Some groups need to do further testing in foreign laboratories to independently confirm the presence and level of GMO contamination in their samples. They also wish to do ongoing monitoring for GMOs on market shelves, to sustain pressure on their governments to take their biosafety responsibilities seriously. They believe they need to continue and intensify their campaigns, given major gaps remaining in African nations’ biosafety legislation.

with thanks to our funders: the sigrid rausing trust and the dutch ministry of foreign affairs

regional policy push: In January 2007, an Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) ministerial conference on Biotechnology and Biosafety took place in Ghana, with the aim of adopting a regional policy on these matters.  FoE groups held a parallel conference in Ghana; there the ECOWAS draft policy was roundly rejected by the alliance of NGOs and Consumer groups, led by FoE Africa groups.

foei report’s african success: FoEI also released a100-page report “Who benefits from GM crops?" The report concludes that the increase in GM crops in a limited number of countries is largely a result of aggressive biotech industry strategies, rather than any stated benefit from GM technology. The launch of this report was very successful in the region.

liberty link threat exposed: Another of our key activities was monitoring long grain rice imports from the USA, to check for the presence of Bayer’s genetically modified LibertyLink Rice 601. Though illegal in the region, the GM rice was found in Ghana and in Sierra Leone. The campaign generated by this monitoring exercise was massive and created deeper public awareness on GMOs in the African region.

food sovereignty forum: African FoE groups also participated in the Food Sovereignty Forum, Nyeleni 2007, held in Mali in February. More than 600 fisherfolk, farmers, consumers, environmentalists, workers and pastoralists from seven regions attended the conference. The aim was to deepen and strengthen the understanding of and movement toward food sovereignty. FoE Mali was part of the local organizing committee, while FoE Nigeria’s Nnimmo Bassey and Edith Abigolo served on the international steering committee.

with thanks to our funders: hivos, the sigrid rausing trust, and oxfam novib