Monday, December 10, 2018

The Blue Economy Agenda-A Resource Grab Scheme?

The Blue Economy Agenda: New Dawn for Africa or just another resource grab scheme?

By

Ronald B. Ndesanjo
The World Bank defines the blue economy as sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, livelihoods improvement, jobs creation, and ecosystems sustainability. In simple terms, it entails the use of ocean resources for sustainable economic growth. This is what we have understood as blue economy until a week ago when the concept presumably got a whole new meaning to include inland water resources. Lakes and rivers were added to the economic equation.

This redefinition was presented during the Sustainable Blue Economy Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya between the 26th and 28th of November 2018. It was a meeting that touched on many things. But, more importantly, it was for mobilizing the global community to exploit the potential for economic growth, jobs creation, and poverty eradication that our blue resources offer.

Economic exploitation of our ocean (and indeed inland waters) resources is not a new thing at all. It dates back to antiquity. Therefore, the main question is: Why such heightened interest in blue resources now?
 The overall aim for the Blue Economy, as far as its propagators are concerned, is twofold: to harness economic potentials offered by oceans (and inland waters); and to restore the health of our blue resources and the ecological systems they support. I am tempted to regard the former as the real motive behind the current Blue Economy agenda. As for the latter, I see it as a mere campaign to legitimize the underlying economic motives.

We have seen this strategy working in other resource exploitation regimes. Be it forestry, wildlife, mineral ores, oil and gas - you name it. The key issue has always been whether there are tangible benefits to our local economies and small holders’ livelihoods. Let me share my reflections on this.
It is quite evident that there are very strong geopolitical motives behind the Blue Economy agenda, especially in the West Indian Ocean (WIO) region. The region is constituted by ten countries, namely Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, and France. The region is valued at US$20.8 billion annually in “Gross Marine Product”. In contrast, the global ocean economy is valued at around US$2.5 trillion.

Hence, by comparison, the WIO economy seems small. But is quite significant given the economic situation characterizing its countries. This potential is likely to be scooped by global superpowers.

The European Union (EU) has already entered into a partnership with Morocco, Mauritius, Senegal, and Seychelles to reform the countries’ fisheries. As if that is not enough, the EU's target is to form coalitions on Blue Economy sub-sectors with at least 50 African countries. The EU, as a region, boasts 640 million euros of revenue and 3.5 million jobs in the Blue Economy and, from the look of things, the big boys want more cut in the sector. In doing so, where else to go than the West Indian Ocean region?

Interestingly, Seychelles was named, in the Nairobi meeting, as the floater of the first Sovereign Blue Bond; a 15 million dollar bond aimed at sustainable fishing and marine resources conservation. The money is coming from American investors with guarantees from the World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility. And this means business, big business. The big question is: what is in it for African countries in the region?

As I hinted above, the tone set in the Nairobi meeting made it very clear that even inland Blue Economy resources (Lakes and Rivers) are on the menu. This is where the potential locked in the Great Lakes regions come into the scene. One can’t help thinking of confirmed and potential oil and gas reserves beneath the Eastern Africa Rift Valley Lakes.
It has already been confirmed, for instance, that there are commercially exploitable oil and gas deposits in Lakes Turkana and Albert in Kenya and Uganda, respectively. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated (in 2013) that oil and gas reserves, respectively, amounting to 1.554 Billion barrels and 623.55 Billion cubic feet in the four East African countries of Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. An Activity Map from the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC) indicates that virtually all the major water bodies in the country are under exploration. Mozambique also has enormous potential for gas.

Thus, when one hears of promises of financial and technological support in sustainable exploitation and conservation of inland Blue Resources, it is not very difficult to tell what the real motives are. This is only oil and gas. Much can still be said about fisheries, tourism, and aquaculture potentials in the great lakes.
Now let us look at how this Blue Economy thing fits into the current East African situation. The first thing that comes to mind is the local (riparian) communities’ welfare. Lake Victoria's Basin, for instance, constitutes about 30 million inhabitants. About 70 percent of them are smallholders engaged in fishing, farming, and livestock husbandry. Equally important, the Lake serves as a source of food, energy, fresh water, shelter, transport, and environmental sink. Its fisheries are valued at US$800 pa. But, even in current standards, distribution of benefits (only from fisheries) is deemed inequitable with smallholders at the losing side.

Apart from potential investments in formalizing (economically) and protecting (for strategic reasons) Blue Economy resources, it still is quite vague how our local communities’ welfare will be safeguarded. There is no clear agenda yet on how local communities’ rights (access, ownership) to such resources will be protected especially after the big boys gain a foothold in the region’s Blue Economy sector. All I see now is what I dare call “blue PR” deceptively used to make an impression that global Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and their frontline institutions’ aims are socio-economically and ecologically friendly. 

Yes, the big boys will help us in regulating fishing, pollution control through the transfer of modern cleaner technologies, curbing regional insecurity, climate change mitigation, etc. But for whose interest really? Ours or theirs? Or both?
The bigger question we need to ponder about is how to protect our people and their economies from potentially negative effects following the influx of new, bigger and powerful players in the Blue Economy sector with new rules of engagement likely to see smallholders being pushed out of the equation. I am very optimistic about the benefits we stand to gain from the Blue Economy resource exploitation. But, we need to put our house in order and very fast so as to better position our people and our local economies as winners.

Re-aligning legal and institutional frameworks should be a top priority to regional bodies like the African Union (AU) and the East African Community (EAC). The AU’s Agenda 2063, for instance, is a potential platform for Africa to position itself strategically to win big from her Blue Resources. Aspiration number 6 of the agenda is quite pertinent here. It seeks to attain people-centered development by tapping the potential of African youths and women who are drivers of the economy. Some flagship projects of the agenda, such as as the African Commodity Strategy and Continental Financial Institutions, could be re-aligned to ensure our people benefit equally from the Blue Economy.  

At the East African level, regional institutions like the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) and Lake Victoria Fisheries Office (LVFO) are better positioned to play a pivotal role in brokering for local communities’ interests. This goes alongside ironing out all problems, especially economic barriers (e.g. trade wars between Kenya and Tanzania) and streamlining transboundary natural (water) resource management mechanisms (ref. dispute over Lake Victoria’s Migingo Island between Kenya and Uganda). It is until this and many more are done when we, as a region, can confidently say that we are ready to do business or this Blue Economy epiphany will be just another resource grab scheme.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

The Genius of My President

The Genius of My President 

Mwanahamisi 'Mishy' Singano

A significant number of the people I know are falling out of love with my president for so many reasons. Some claim he is not presidential, not compassionate and, of course, not a politician. Ironically, the latter was one of the qualities most of his aficionados  admired - the fact that he was not a typical politician. ‘Mechanical,’ they called him - he would deliver development without being politicized, they presumed.

Three years down the line, I look back on how it started and how we got here. I can’t help but feel admiration on how cleverly he has played his politics; smart, tough, and sequenced - virtually dealing with one thing at a time, almost in a chronological order. And in the broad day light - live televised. Such genius!
When he put a stop on the live broadcast of the parliament sessions, I thought this is a simply a mechanism to control information and shape the narrative. What I didn’t realize then is that I will not only miss out on information, but I will not recognize the faces of our Members of Parliament (MPs), I won’t know their names and what they stand for, I will not connect with them - the trust bond between me and them is gone. Most of them have become unpopular and less influential to the majority of us. But because he is the only one who is really watching, MPs now have only one person to impress - him. 

On the other hand, he has made himself a household name. There are live coverage of all his events and speeches, ensuring there will be new news from him or his famous press secretary every day. We talk about him, everywhere and every day, whether being in a romantic date, in a bar or dinner. Love or hate it, he is the most talked about person in the country even by the people who never used to follow politics beyond elections. Such awesomeness!
I guess we would all agree that his crackdown on the rich and the powerful was untraditional and innovative. He did not only pick up a handful of them and deal with them aggressively to the extent that the majority of the ‘other’ started to pack and go, but with the help of  his aiders, he also made sure that the drama aspect of these crackdowns are of high quality in terms of their viral effect. We know, at time, the drama and script didn’t match – but who cares? They served the purpose and that is what makes it super cool!
Another new entry to the history book is how tax has been used as a tool of punishment for businesses of all scales and shapes, with only two options given to the punished; accept the punishment with praises or close the business with praises as well. For those who have accepted to be punished, they then have to deal with Regional Commissioners (RCs) and District Commissioners (DCs) who often show up or call them, demanding contributions to build or host this and that. I bet socialists are having the best time of their lives. As he famously said, ‘the era of ‘the rich can do anything’ are gone, now, ‘anything can be done on the rich.’

Then there is - or there was - the opposition. I guess we all know how he is dealing with them. But one of the things that strikes me, is his effortless ability to make all of us realize that opposition leaders have a price tag too, they can be sold and bought just like pizza. ‘Standing for an issue’ is for only those who do not have the opportunity to enjoy the national cake with the rulers. Because of that, people feel cheated by the opposition. 

We are increasingly pledging our allegiance to our ‘frustrations,’ which serves the party in power. Less opposition MPs due to defection to the ruling party means fewer funds and human-power to run and build the opposition parties. Add that with the crackdown of the rich, and the limited scope of political parties' mandate as proposed in the political party bill, I see a boring, broke and starved opposition  camp come the 2020 elections. I swear, we are all set to vote yes. 
Media – Oh gosh, who would ever thought I will be only watching the Tanzania Broadcasting Corporation (TBC) TV right now, with about 90% of its programming praising our Commander-in-Chief? Laws and regulations have been enacted to make it harder for alternative narratives. What we have now is state of the art, well-thought through state propaganda system run by once celebrated critics of the state monopoly of the public media and the best part is, no one is really complaining. I am amazed. 

Of course, the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) should have been complaining but most of them are dealing with their own state conformity. With new law demanding CSO to gazette all the funds received and ministries responsible holding the right to direct them on both ‘focus, and geographical coverage’, the level of CSO's self-censorship is at all-time record high. NGOs have turned to be New Government Organizations.

Satisfied with his subtle crackdown on the parliament, media, business, and CSOs/NGOs, the only group which was left were development partners. With the international community powers plus the actual money power, they can real make things hard to the rulers. The genius of my president set up a ‘frustration’ trap. As per its design, they are falling for it. I can imagine him on his sofa and popcorn, watching their every move, waiting for the right time to indulge them with other sets of frustrating drama until they leave him alone with his country, in any form. That aside, I strongly believe, he might not qualify for the Nobel peace price, but he definitely deserves a Harvard honorary degree for politicking.

Having all these achievements in 3 years, with majority of the citizens running their business as usual despite shrinking income and insecurities, is commendable. You can blame this on the apparent non-confrontational Tanzanians culture but never underestimate the influence of the men behind it. His political acumen has left many of us failing to predict and afraid to act. One of my good friend wrote, ‘confusion is his strategy.’ I see no confusion. All I see is determination, over-calculation and super-powered brain-coding of every move. 
The question is, to what end? Life-time presidency? What else?

Monday, November 26, 2018

Kwa nini Kusimamisha Majaribio ya GMO ni Ushindi?

Kwa Nini Uamuzi wa Serikali kusimamisha Majaribio ya GMO ni Ushindi kwa Tanzania?


Awali ya yote, nipende kuipongeza Serikali ya Awamu ya Tano kwa usikivu wake na kuchukua hatua stahiki kuhusiana na sakata la mimea na mbegu Zilizobadilishwa Vinasaba (GMO) nchini. Kama mtafiti wa Uhuru wa Chakula, napenda kuihakikishia Serikali kuwa, wadau mbalimbali wakiwemo wakulima, walaji, wazalishaji wa mbegu wa ndani, watafiti katika taasisi zetu za Kilimo (mbali na wale waliokuwa wakinufaika na mradi wa WEMA), na wauzaji wa vyakula nje na ndani ya nchi wamefarijika sana na hatua hii. Namshukuru Katibu Mkuu wa Wizara ya Kilimo, lakini pia natambua suala hili ni la kisera hivyo kwa namna yeyote linamhusu Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania-Mheshimiwa Dkt. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli. Natoa pongezi za dhati kabisa kwa Serikali, na katika makala hii fupi nitaeleza kwa nini uamuzi huu ni wa kupongezwa.  

Kwanza, nianze kwa kukiri kuwa, hatua hii ambayo Serikali imechukua isingekwepeka katika nchi makini kama Tanzania. Lilikuwa ni suala la muda tu. Kuna watu wanaodhani maamuzi haya yamefikiwa kwa hofu tu isiyo na msingi wa kitafiti. Lakini nataka kuwatahadharisha kuwa Serikali ina taarifa nyingi zaidi kuliko sisi tunavyofikiri. Na kwa mwenendo wa kisera wa Serikali ya Awamu ya Tano, suala hili halikuhitaji mjadala wala barua za watu wasio na ushawishi wowote kutoka Mbinga au London. Lakini nitambue tu tamko la wakulima wenyewe, wakiwakilishwa na MVIWATA, huenda liliharakisha maamuzi haya muhimu kwa masilahi ya Taifa.  

Suala la kuruhusu teknolojia ya uhandisi-jeni, ni la kimkakati. Mara nyingi sana nimemsikia Rais akisisitiza Serikali inatekeleza Ilani ya CCM. Napenda kukumbusha tu kuwa Ilani ya CCM ya mwaka 2015 ndiyo mkataba halisi kati ya Serikali na Wananchi waliokichagua chama hiki ili kitawale kuanzia mwaka 2015-2020. Tathmini ya kina inaonesha kuwa CCM haikuahidi teknolojia ya Uhandisi-jeni (Genetic Engineering) katika kilimo kupitia ilani yake ya mwaka 2015. Mkakati huu ungekuwepo kwenye Ilani huenda tungesema kuwa watu wameuchagua pale walipoipigia kura CCM. Kinachoshangaza ni pale ambapo katika Mpango wa Pili wa Sekta ya Kilimo (ASDP II), uhandisi-jeni katika mimea, wanyama na samaki unatamkwa kama mkakati ya Serikali katika kilimo. Hali hii inachanganya. 

Lakini pia tathmini ya kina inaonesha kuwa, mkakati ya uhandisi-jeni umekuwa ukisukumwa na makampuni husika yatakayonufaika na teknolojia hii kwa kuzitumia taasisi zetu za utafiti. Kimsingi, Sera ya Taifa ya Baiteknolojia (National Biotechnology Policy), iliyopitishwa mwaka 2010 ina kila harufu ya ushawishi wa hiki tunachokiona leo huku masilahi ya taifa yakiwekwa rehani. Kiutawala, taasisi za utafiti nchini si watunga sera bali watekelezaji wa sera na mikakati ya serikali iliyopo madarakani. Jukumu lao kuu ni kutoa utaalamu wa kitafiti kwa serikali ili kuiwezesha kutumia ushauri huo katika kutunga sera na mikakati husika. 

Katika sakata la mbegu za GMO, Taasisi ya Utafiti wa Kilimo nchini (TARI) na Tume ya Sayansi na Teknolojia (COSTECH) wamefanya tofauti. Naam, hawakutimiza wajibu wao. Taasisi hizi zimenukuliwa katika vyombo vya habari kama makuwadi wa kunadi mbegu za GMO kuwa zinakuja ili kumkomboa mkulima mdogo. Sera ya Baiteknolojia inatamka wazi katika kipengele cha malengo ya jumla kuwa inakusudia tu kutumia faida zilizothibitika za baioteknolojia, huku ikilinda usalama wa jamii na mazingira katika matumizi ya faida hizi. Hii inatuonesha kuwa, tayari waandaaji ya sera hii, pamoja na ubovu wake, walijua kuna madhara ya teknolojia hii.

Ukisoma Eneo la Sera (Policy Issue) 4.5, sera inataka umma wa Watanzania upate taarifa sahihi kuhusu teknolojia hii ili kuwasiadia wananchi na watunga sera kufanya uamuzi utakanao na ufahamu (informed decision) juu ya matumizi ya teknolojia hii kwa maendeleo. Kipengele hiki kinaendelea kusisitiza taasisi hizi kutoa taarifa sahihi na zenye mlingano wa faida na madhara ya teknolojia hii. Haiishii hapo tu, taasisi hizi zinahimizwa kuandaa midahalo na mijadala kuhusu faida na madhara ya matumizi ya teknolojia kwa afya, mazingira, uchumi na kimaadili. 

Lakini TARI na COSTECH waliamua kuchagua upande wa kuzungumzia faida tu za GMO kwa niaba ya wawekezaji wakati  tafiti lukuki za kisayansi zilizofanywa sehemu mbalimbali duniani zinasema kuna madhara, kama nilivyoeleza katika Barua yangu ya Wazi kwa Rais hapo awali. Tumefanya mijadala na wawakilishi wa taasisi hizi mara kadhaa, siyo walioandaa wao, ila walioalikwa lakini wamekuwa wakiimba faida za GMO tu bila kueleza ukweli kuhusu madhara. Mbali na kuwa hawakutoa elimu yenye mlingano wa faida na hasara, lakini pale ambapo watu walijitolea kutoa elimu hiyo, taasisi hizi zilitoa matamko ya kutaka kuzuia mjadala. Hali ilikuwa mbaya zaidi pale ambapo hata vyombo vya habari vilikuwa na upande wa kuzuia mawazo mbadala dhidi ya GMO.

Kimsingi, taasisi hizi zinazoendeshwa kwa kodi ya Watanzania hazikupaswa kutuchagulia teknolojia na kutumia wakulima kushawishi mbegu za GMO na teknolojia ya uhandisi-jeni zipitishwe chinichini kama mkakati wa nchi. Hazikupaswa kuendesha propaganda za kushawishi umma kuzipokea mbegu hizi bila taarifa sahihi juu ya faida na madhara. Kwa kuzingatia athari za kiuchumi zitokanazo na mbegu za GMO, COSTECH na hasa TARI walipaswa kuhimiza utafiti unaoendana na kilimo chetu na kuwa mhimili mkubwa wa mageuzi ya kilimo nchini. Kiujumla, taasisi hizi hazikupaswa kuwa makuwadi wa makampuni ya nje yanayokusudia kutuletea ukoloni wa kikampuni. 

Kwa upande wa serikali yetu tukufu, kuruhusu kuanza kwa utafiti, na baadaye kutoa rukhsa ya matumizi ya mbegu za GMO ni jambo ambalo yafaa umakini uzingatiwe. Nafurahi kuona kuwa kanuni zetu za usalama wa viini hai (biosafety), zinaweka tahadhari kubwa sana, japo pamekuwa na jitihada za kuzimwagia maji kwanza kuruhusu utafiti. Lakini kuruhusu matumizi ya mbegu za GMO zenye athari katika maisha ya makundi mbalimbali niliyoyataja hapo juu, na nafasi yetu ya kuuza chakula ndani na nje ya nchi, ni suala ambalo haliwezi kuchukuliwa kwa wepesi. Kwa namna yeyote serikali ilipaswa kupata ridhaa ya jamii za asili za maeneo hayo (indigenous peoples) hasa kwa kuzingatia fasili ambayo inahusisha wakulima wadogo kwa misingi ya kanuni ya Free, Prior and Informed Consent(FPIC), yaani uhuru wa kuridhia kabla ya kitu fulani kufanyika.

Kanuni hii ya ridhaa ya jamii husika inawekwa na mikataba ya kimataifa kama vile Azimio la Umoja wa Mataifa la Haki za Jamii za Asili (UNDRIP), Mkataba wa Shirika la Kazi namba 169 (ILO Convention 169), na Sera kuhusu Jamii za Asili na Watu wa Makabila iliyoandaliwa na Shirika la Chakula Duniani (FAO). Sheria za kimataifa zinaweka wazi haki ya kujitawala (Right to self-determination) kwa jamii hizi ambayo ndiyo msingi mkubwa wa kuhakikisha kuna ridhaa kutoka kwa jamii za asili zinazoishi na kutegemea maeneo yanayolengwa. Hivyo basi, jambo linalobadili maisha yao kama hili la mbegu za GMO, kiuchumi, kimazingira na hata kiafya lilipaswa kupata ridhaa ya wakulima wadogo, ambao kimsingi ni asilimia kubwa ya wananchi wetu. Ukiniuliza mimi, kwa kuwa GMO inagusa pia jamii kubwa ya walaji wa mijini na vijijini, uamuzi huu unahitaji kura ya maoni (referendum).  

Lakini kuna baadhi ya watu wanaona ni jambo la ukakasi kuzuia utafiti huo wa GMO. Hoja hii imepata mashiko makubwa na inaoneka kuzuia utafiti ni kutokupenda  sayansi. Ieleweke pia, kupinga GMO inaonekana pia kama ni kupinga sayansi. Wasiwasi mkubwa pia umeoneshwa na baadhi ya wanafunzi wanaotaka kubobea katika teknolojia hii, wakihofu kuwa sasa hawatapata fursa ya kufanyia kazi ujuzi wao. 

Lakini utafiti wa GMO uliofanyika Makutupora-Dodoma ulikuwa na mwelekeo upi? Mwelekeo wa tafiti hizi ulikuwa kuhalalisha tu mradi wa mbegu za GMO kwa kuzitumia taasisi zetu. Utafiti huu haukuwa HURU wenye lengo la kuleta matokeo mapya, kama vile kujibu ukosoaji wa kisayansi uliofanywa na tafiti za wanasayansi wengine waliogundua athari mbalimbali za GMO katika mazingira, baianuai, na mtanzuko wa kisayansi juu ya usalama wa vyakula vya GMO kiafya. Inaonekana utafiti huu ulilenga uzalishaji tu kisha watafiti wanaumbaumba ripoti za tathmini za kiuchumi na kimazingira ili kuurubuni umma kuwa GMO hazina madhara yeyote. Na kimsingi, utafiti huu ulifanywa katika mazingira magumu ya hakimiliki (patent) ambapo wanasayansi wetu hawakuwa na uwezo wa kuifikia teknolojia halisi ya uhandisi-jeni bali kufanya majaribio ya kukuza mimea tu katika eneo la majaribio. Kampuni ya Monsanto imekuwa ikifanya majaribio ya aina hii katika kila nchi kama hatua ya kulazimisha mbegu na vyakula vya GMO vikubalike huku yenyewe ikiwa inahakikisha inahodhi hakimiliki mbalimbali za mbegu.

Ikumbukwe kuwa, Afrika Kusini, ambao walirasimisha matumizi ya GMO nchini mwao tangu miaka ya 1990 wiki iliyopita walikataa kuidhinisha mbegu za mahindi za Monsanto MON87460, MON89034, na NK603 zilizotajwa kuhimili ukame na wadudu. Lakini tathmini binafsi zilionesha kuwa uwezo wa mbegu hizi haukutofautiana na mbegu zinazozalishwa kawaida, na katika majaribio mengine mbegu za GMO zilikuwa na mazao hafifu kuliko mbegu za kawaida. Hii inadhihirisha kwamba Afrika Kusini wameanza kung’amua ujanja wa makampuni haya wenye lengo tu la kulikamata soko la mbegu. Lakini pia utafiti huu wa Afrika Kusini ulichukua miaka takribani mitano, lakini utashangazwa na utafiti wa miaka miwili (2016-2018) wa Makutupora halafu wanasema wakulima wanazihitaji hizo mbegu haraka, hata kabla tathmini huru haijafanyika. Utafiti huu haukuwa na malengo sahihi kwa masilahi ya Taifa na serikali ilikuwa na kila sababu ya kuupiga tindo.

Tathmini iliyofanywa na Chuo Cha Ulinzi cha Marekani mwaka 2011, inaeleza kuwa kuna uwezekano wa maadui kutumia GMO kama silaha ya kibaiolojia na kuleta madhara makubwa sana kwa jamii. Ripoti hii ya utafiti inatufungua macho kujua ni kwa jinsi gani teknolojia hii inapaswa kuchukuliwa kwa umakini. Mimi naunga mkono utafiti. Lakini kwanza ningeshauri Serikali iwekeze katika teknolojia hii na kupata wataalamu watakaoweza kufanya uhandisi-jeni wenyewe. Na taasisi zetu za kiusalama zinaweza kuwa mwangalizi mzuri wa tafiti hizi zenye lengo la kujielimisha kwa kushirikisha taasisi zingine na watafiti binafsi nchini. Hatuwezi kuacha uwekezaji huu kwa makampuni ya nje bila serikali kujiridhisha kuhusu faida na madhara ya teknolojia hii. Ningetamani watafiti wa Tanzania waje na matokeo huru ya faida na hasara za GMO. 

Lakini pia si lazima tufanye utafiti wa kila kitu hasa kama tuna vipaumbele vingine. Tafiti inapaswa kuwa kwa ajili ya msaada wa nchi, na teknolojia ni chombo cha kuleta maendeleo lakini si dira ya maendeleo. Tathmini inaonesha kuwa teknolojia ya uhandisi-jeni ni ghali, ila hatuwezi kusema tunachelewa kupata teknolojia hii. Ningeshauri tafiti zetu zijikite zaidi katika maeneo mengine ya kilimo ili kuboresha mbegu zetu zinazoweza kuzaa kawaida, kwani tafiti zinaonesha kuna uwezekano wa kuwa na mbegu za kawaida zinazohimili ukame na kuleta tija kubwa. Ni jambo la kushangaza pia kuwa Monsanto wana mbegu za kawaida zinazohimili ukame lakini wanaona hazitawapa mamlaka ya kutosha juu yetu.

Ujasiri wa Serikali ya Awamu ya Tano kuzuia majaribio ya GMO unatutia moyo sana. Pamoja na mambo mengine, Serikali ya CCM ikiongozwa na Rais Magufuli imekuwa jasiri katika kufufua ATCL kwa kununua ndege mpya; ujenzi wa reli (Standard Gauge Railway-SGR) ili kuboresha miundombinu na sekta ya usafirishaji; kuhakikisha taifa linanufaika na rasilimali zake kama vile madini katika sakata maarufu la makinikia; na imesimama thabiti katika nia ya kujenga bwawa la kuzalisha umeme (Stiegler’s Gorge Hydropower Plant), hatua ambayo itatupatia umeme wa uhakika. Katika mkakati wa viwanda, tumebakiza mkakati thabiti tu wa kuhakikisha Mkulima Mdogo analipeleka jembe la mkono Makumbusho ya Taifa, kwa kujengwa viwanda vinavyotengeneza zana za bei nafuu na za kisasa (motorized simple and affordable farm implements) zitakazoongeza tija katika uzalishaji.
 Pia tunahitaji utekelezaji wa Azimio la asilimia 1 ya pato la taifa kuelekezwa katika tafiti, ili taasisi zetu za kilimo ziweze kujikita katika kuboresha mbegu zinazoendana na utamaduni wa chakula chetu. Na mwisho Serikali inapaswa kuhakikisha mkulima ananufaika na kilimo kwa kuweka mazingira wezeshi ya soko la uhakika la ndani na kufungua mipaka ya nje ili Tanzania iwe inauza chakula bora na kisicho na unyanyapaa katika ukanda wa SADC, na Afrika Mashariki. Ukisoma Ilani ya CCM 2015 ukurasa wa 14-16 haya, na mambo mengine, ndiyo wakulima waliyategemea katika ASDP II na utekelezwaji wake mpaka 2020. 

Katika kufanikisha hayo, tunahitaji mikakati sahihi na GMO, mbegu na chakula chenye unyanyapaa duniani, haiwezi kuwa sehemu ya mkakati huo. Niliwahi kusema huko nyuma, Tanzania kama kitovu cha utalii Afrika tunapaswa kulinda vyakula vyetu kwa choyo kubwa, ili tusiwakwaze watalii wetu. Lakini pia kwa kuzingatia uwezo wetu wa kuzalisha, ambao mpaka sasa hatujauendeleza vya kutosha, ningetamani kuona Tanzania inakuwa chanzo cha uzalishaji na usambazaji wa vyakula salama Afrika huku vikiwanufaisha wakulima wetu na kuchangia ukuaji wa pato la Taifa na maendeleo.

Naipongeza tena Serikali kwa uthubutu na kuchukua maamuzi sahihi bila kupepesa macho. Katika sakata hili la kuzuia GMO nchini, Watanzania wameshinda. Pasi na shaka, uamuzi huu utakumbukwa siku za usoni.

Mungu Ibariki Tanzania!

Monday, November 19, 2018

DIAMOND PLATNUMZ AND MORALISM IN TANZANIA







































“RAUNCHY” DIAMOND PLATNUMZ AND CREEPING MORAL CONSERVATISM IN TANZANIA


East Africa’s finest Afro-pop singer Naseeb Abdul, known by his stage name Diamond Platinum has once again found himself IN hot water after Baraza la Sanaa Tanzania (BASATA), the national art council, banned his latest single titled “Mwanza.” To my recollection, it is the fourth time the Bongo Fleva singer has been on the receiving end of BASATA’s stringent moral code. Bongo Fleva is probably Tanzania’s fastest growing industry in the last two decades (of course, with a little bit of tongue-in-cheek). It is made of “youth music” or, as known in the country, “new generation music.”

Bongo, i.e. brain, stands for Tanzania when it is parochially used, but it can also mean Africa if stretched to the pan-Africanist discourse. Mbongo, i.e. someone who uses his/her brain to survives, is a Tanzanian, but can also mean an African. Bongo Fleva, thus, means the flavor of Bongo, musically.  
The last time Diamond’s music was banned was early this year when he released Hallelujah and Waka Waka. It led to a heated exchange between him and the Deputy Minister of Information, Culture, Arts and Sports. Later in April, Diamond was made to issue a public apology after video clips of him and his girlfriend(s) enjoying intimate moments were posted online. It is not like they were caught in the act, just those little things most couple would do in private: like a lap dance, for instance. Such is the level of moralism sweeping Tanzania in the age of the internet!
  
A few weeks ago, the country’s film board indefinitely banned from acting a famous socialite, Wema Sepetu, after she posted a “sexually explicit” video of her kissing a boyfriend. Tanzania has a tough law in the Cybercrimes Act, 2015which makes it criminal to post online pornographic materials that are “lascivious or obscene.” She has since been charged of the offence and could face 10 years behind bars. 

Back to Diamond Platnumz, he is just a mega star. He is the country and region’s biggest export in the music industry. He has done collabos with international artistes, such as Nigeria’s famous duo P Square, Jamaica’s legendary reggae group Morgan Heritage, America’s A-list rapper Ricky Ross, Ne-Yo, and Grammy-winning violinist Miri Ben-Ari. He has 5.5 million followers on Instagram. He is constantly involved in relationship dramas where he has had multiple love affairs. He is a dream newsmaker for the notorious rumor mill. He is the country’s showbiz. 
But he is not Fela Kuti. Nor is he Vitali Maembe. Far from it.

I am a big Diamond fan. I once bumped into him in the waiting lounge at Dubai International Airport. I approached, greeted, and told him I was a fan. We shook hands graciously. I even asked for a selfie with him but his manager declined politely, saying they had denied the opportunity for a good number of people who were shoving one another to get a shot with the Bongo Fleva superstar“It’s not fair if we allowed you to take pictures with him in the presence of those we have refused,” suggested Sallam SK, Diamond’s usually boastful manager.

I understood, high-fived with the celebrity, and left. It was all cool.

As hinted above, his latest feud with BASATA follows the release of his single Mwanza. In fact, he is only featured in the song by his fellow Wasafi Classic Baby’s (WCB0 group member, the talented Rayvanny (stage name). WCB is Diamond’s label group. Mwanza was an instant hit. Two days after the release, the song was viewed nearly 2 million times on YouTube. The Mwanza fever caught the country’s youthful Environment and Union minister, January Makamba, who praised WCB for improved choreography and world-play. Hours later, the song was banned and has since been removed from YouTube, at least for Tanzanians.
Because of Diamond’s stature, anything that happens to him is equally big. It was a big ban, which ignited the debate on morality in the country, on the one hand, and the role of BASATA, on the other. Quite a good number of music releases have not escaped BASATA’s wielding axe, since the 5th phase government came to power in 2015. In March last year, rapper Ney wa Mitego was arrested after releasing a song that was deemed critical of the government. He was released after the Minister responsible for information said the President loves the song and has suggested improving its lyrics "to take on other issues, such as tax evaders, corrupt businesspeople and drug traffickers." Another song by rapper Nikki Mbishi titled I am sorry JK was also banned. In the song, the rapper artistically apologizes to the former president Jakaya Kikwete for criticizing him when he was in power, insinuating that his successor has been worse. That, in BASATA’s book of law, was equivalent to insulting President Magufuli.

So, what is in Mwanza to the extent that it was deemed inappropriate for the Tanzanian public? It is not clear since the statement from BASATA only points to “immoral” content. But there are two contentious parts of the song: Mwanza is the city in the North of Tanzania on the shores of Lake Nyanza (shamelessly colonizers called it Victoria). In the song, the singers sing about “Nyegezi”, a popular suburb in Mwanza. But they first set apart “nyege” from “nyegezi,” before demanding that they are taken to Nyegezi because that is where their home is. 
It is a soothing poetic, melodic word-play that leaves the listener in a metaphoric state of mind because “nyege” is a Swahili word for horniness! In another line, Diamond sings about a girl who goes to his house and she seductively alludes to having anal sex to which he responds that he is fearful of the law, therefore, won’t be tempted. Sodomy is a serious crime in Tanzania. The backdrop to this is a leaked sex tape of a certain Amber Ruty (female) performing sodomy with a male partner, causing a national furore.  “I am fearful of the law, I am not doing an Amber Ruty,” sings Diamond. That was enough for BASATA; the mere mentioning of sodomy in a homophobic, patriarchal society can land one in trouble.
Tanzania has seen growing moral conservatism in recent years, a development that must warrant a social scientific interrogation. Public offices have introduced a conservative dress code for both their employees and visitors. In some offices, normal miniskirts are deemed too short and revealing, the wearer would be blocked at the gate. Patched jeans are prohibited for visitors. In some places, it has been reported that local governments there have introduced corporal punishment against young people with sagging pants!
  
The justification given by moralists is always suspicious: the wazungu (white people) are destroying our culture, we are a nation of men and women of God! Recently, speaking against homosexuality during a parliamentary session, the Home Affairs minister, Kangi Lugola strongly maintained that his government is not about to succumb to forces of evil by condoning homosexuality. “Tanzania is a nation of the Holy Spirit,” he announced.
This growing moralism, together with shrinking civic space in Tanzania, has created a breeding ground for homophobia, misogyny, and moral conservatism which calls for purity. I have blogged about this elsewhere


Earlier I mentioned that Diamond is not Fela Kuti. Unlike Kuti, Diamond is a regime sympathizer. Time and again he has expressed his admiration for President Magufuli and his government. The Dar es Salaam Regional Commissioner who recently announced a manhunt on gay people is the WCB’s guardian. This political connection has created a wrong assumption that the country’s music prized asset is somehow untouchable. He seems to enjoy this status because he has not been outspoken when the government is wrong. To be fair to him, Tanzania now lacks militant art in the mainstream. And those in power love it.

Sometime last year, the Minister of Information, Culture, Arts and Sports advised musicians to compose songs that are not “political.” He used Diamond as an example of those whose music is not political but has reached stardom. He bizarrely warned artistes not to follow Fela Kuti’s way and end up as losers! However, the social and political context in Tanzania is leaving no one untouched. Not even Diamond. He may have avoided getting political, but the moral requirement imposed by BASATA has evidently failed him.
For an artiste of his stature, Diamond may be forced to radicalize. But only if he is aware of the power he has. It is a good sign he is now rivaling the country’s music establishment by organizing Wasafi Festival, an event that features nationwide music concerts. It is a project he says will emancipate the usually underpaid, undervalued talents of Bongo Fleva. He may want to use this platform and his stature to redefine our art. And our conservative morals, too.

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

What's so Patriotic about Stiegler’s Gorge Project?

What is patriotic and what is not between development and conservation? The Political Ecology of Stiegler’s Gorge Hydroelectric Power Project in Tanzania


By


In June 2017, the 5th administration made public its ambitious plan to build what would become the biggest power project in Tanzania. Expected to generate 2,100 MW of electricity, the Stigler’s Gorge Hydroelectric Project (HEP) will draw its water from the Rufiji River. The rationales given were: high energy demand for yet another government's ambitious plan of transforming the country into an industrial economy; and the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project that would run on electricity.

Of course, you need reliable power to run the factories and indeed the train. That makes perfect economic sense. No objections!

The breaking news coincided with a backlash from local and international conservation groups who regarded implementing the project as signing a death warrant to the Selous Game Reserve (UNESCO’s heritage site) and socio-ecological systems, which are primarily dependent on the Rufiji River, especially in the lower course of the river. This is where livelihoods of hundred of thousand of people depend on irrigated paddy farming and where fishing and mangroves ecosystem flourish. A huge tension between the two sides was thus sparked and it is no secret that conservationists and environmentalists are now regarded as enemy to the project, in particular, and to the country or state, in general.
In this reflection, I attempt to make sense of claims from both sides of the debate and propose a compromise. In view of that, I argue that the move by the government to bring back the Stiegler’s HEP project on board comes as a desperate attempt to ensure that there is reliable energy supply after the recent drastic reforms in the energy and extractive sectors’ regulatory regimes. Similarly, the position that has been taken by conservationists and environmental experts does not necessarily imply conspiring with “imperialists” who wishes to see that Tanzania is economically doomed. Rather, they have been advocating for conservation policies and regulations that we, as a country, have embraced and even been praised for. 

As the 4th administration was about to enter its second and last term, Tanzania witnessed a bold move by the government to adopt what was then dubbed a “gas driven economy”. Legal and institutional reforms were made and the tone was set. It was then a high gear on gas and a lower one on hydro and thermal as sources of power. The cheerleader of the movement was the then Minister responsible for energy, Professor  Sospeter Muhongo.
 The country, therefore, witnessed a series of news headlines about discoveries of commercially exploitable natural gas deposits and it was high time Tanzania shifted to gas as a major source of energy, forsaking hydro and thermal ones, which were deemed burdensome given the siltation in our HEP dams. Global warming was aptly blamed for extreme low water levels and this resulted in high costs of running/hiring diesel generators. This is around the same period when we saw the plan (then) to build Stiegler’s HEP under the Rufiji Basin Development Authority (RUBADA) abandoned. 

In the first two years of the 5th administration, we have witnessed a radical shift in management of the economy, which I dare equate to undoing of the preceding administration’s economic outlook. It became very clear from the outset that the government was embarking on a state-led (or dominated, if I may) economic model. This is what Thabit Jacob, a Tanzanian researcher currently based at Roskilde University in Denmark and who has done extensive research on role of the state in the extractive sector, term as “The Return of the State.” 
Well, it was not declared as such, but the move to shake up tax and fiscal regimes, legal and institutional reforms in productive sectors, especially extractives, left no doubt that that is the way we were going. What most of us were told, is that this was a move to curb grand tax evasion, corruption, theft of the country’s natural wealth, and other forms of economic malaise. Natural gas exploration and extraction is one of sub-sectors that felt the impact of the reforms the most. For example, just recently, a global leader in the sector, Exxon Mobil, expressed its wish to sell its stakes in Tanzania. Coupled with recent oil and gas discoveries in neighbouring Mozambique, and possibly fairer business environment (in the investors perspective), facts are not so hard to find as to the current situation in Tanzania regarding the oil and gas economy. 

The TZS 700 billion ($308 million) allocated in the 2018-2019 budget for the Stiegler’s HEP is insignificant when one considers investment costs in gas exploration and, that is, if  the exploration are successful. I personally don’t see how the current regime can smoothly continue with gas exploration without joining hands with private investors (with financial and technological capital) whom seem to be quite displeased with the current developments. This only leaves the country with HEP as the most viable option given the current economic situation and our urgent need for energy. 

In May 2018, it was in the news that a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on Stiegler’s HEP has been undertaken and completed. This brought to rest speculations that the 2009 EIA would be used for the project as currently proposed. Good news (to the project proponent) was that the new EIA has given a green light for construction work to proceed. According to the lead researcher for the EIA, Professor Raphael Mwalyosi, the proposed project’s impacts found were preventable. The researcher was quoted saying that "Our assessment has revealed that the project can be implemented without any form of fear. The only best approach is to set strategies that will prevent such environment impacts," (Daily News, 13 June 2018)

Despite the good news, the EIA findings were later lambasted as unrealistic. Its lead researcher was accused of being unpatriotic, probably for airing some reservations (mitigation measures) regarding how the project should proceed with minimum negative impacts to the people and the environment. From the look of things, one would understand that the issue here is not about environmentalists not being patriotic. Rather, the urgency with which the country needs energy to feed its ambitious projects that are underway.
Hence, it seems, the government will stop at nothing to make sure there is reliable energy (let’s bother about sustainability later). It is quite unfortunate that this time around, it was environmentalists colluding with imperialists to derail the country’s development agenda. Ooh, so many enemies we have now! 

I still regard EIA as a very important component in any development project and, therefore, part of the development process. EIA is not anti-development as most would think but an assurance that what we do is sustainable and for the greater good. And, if I were to propose, a project of such magnitude as 2,100 MW HEP Dam warrants a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as its impacts will spill over several sectors of the economies and socio-ecological subsystems.

Karibu kwenye ulingo wa kutafakari kuhusu tunapotoka,tulipo,tuendako na namna ambavyo tutafika huko tuendako/Welcome to a platform for reflecting on where we are coming from, where we are, where we are going and how we will get there

  © Blogger templates 'Neuronic' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP