The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a research and advocacy organisation working towards food sovereignty and agroecology in Africa, with a focus on biosafety, seed systems and agricultural biodiversity. The organisation is committed to dismantling inequalities and resisting corporate industrial expansion in Africa’s food and agriculture systems.
Design and layout by Vicky-Lee Vermeulen, Align Creative Cover art by Isaac Zavale from the series: Ultra-processed food in Africa
CONTENTS
Introduction
Acknowledgments
Highlights
Biodiversity/ Agrobiodiversity
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Processes
Engagement with the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) 26
Implementation of GBF: Key issues for transformation of agriculture / food systems in Zambia, Tanzania, and Kenya
Artifical intelligence (AI)/ Synthetic biology (Synbio) briefing and webinar
Engagement at CBD’s COP 16
Harmful subsidies, debt, and financing for biodiversity in Africa
Continental processes
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as a means to actualise GBF targets
Southern African processes
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP)
Comments on SA’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (NFNSP) and National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES)
Seed policy work in Africa and SA
Comments on Implementation of Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)
International Farmer Seeds Gathering 2024
Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)’s third Pan-African Seed Conference
Continued engagement on FMSS, regulations of seed laws, and implementation of ITPGRFA in SA
Seed
Corporate power in the agrifood system
Monitoring expansion of genetic modification (GM) in SA
Groundbreaking judgment of Supreme Court of Appeal in ACB vs Monsanto/ Bayer and the State
Regulation of genome editing and new tech upheld in South Africa
Celebrating 20 years of resistance against GMOs in Africa
Monitoring GM and New Technologies work on the continent
Resistance against the Gene Drive Mosquito project in Tanzania
South-South collaborative activism to stop growing / importation of GM wheat
South-South regional meeting on new breeding technologies (NBTs)
Support against the general release of Bt-GT cotton application in Ethiopia
Agroecology
Collapse of farm input supply programmes (FISPs) in Southern Africa
Assessment of regional agroecology strategies. Kenya and Tanzania
Urban and peri-urban food nutrition
Ultra-processed food (UPF) in Africa series
Resistance against agrotoxins in SA’s agriculture
SA People’s Tribunal on Agrotoxins (SAPToA) takes shape
Civil society coalition calls out government failure to regulate agrotoxin, Terbufos
Call for a review of registration of agrotoxin 2,4-D
Just transition in the food system
Critical assessment of agricultural sector’s Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan (CCAMP)
Regional Women’s Faith Leader Environmental Advocacy Training (FLEAT)
Rural Women’s Assembly People’s Dialogue
Stakeholders and partnerships
ACB staff and board members
Website and social media snapshot for 2024
Acronyms
End notes
INTRODUCTION
Recognising the complex and multidirectional interactions between food systems, particularly related to agricultural biodiversity and climate change, the ACB initiated new work with progressive civil society networks (CSOs) to facilitate an integrated and elaborated agroecological response to biodiversity, climate change, and sustainable food systems issues and plans.
We intensified our efforts to conceptualise what new food systems may resemble in the future, highlighting the necessity for a rapid shift in energy sources and agroecological transitions in food systems built upon proven and effective technologies in the public interests, and practices. In South Africa (SA), significant advancements have been achieved in agroecology policy, national coalition building, and articulating political positions on discourses surrounding just transitions in food and agriculture.
The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), establishes 23 targets that must be met by 2030 and 2050 to conserve biodiversity, including several focusing on intersecting areas of ACB’s work. Building on this effort, we engaged in numerous policy processes in SA, providing feedback on multiple biodiversity-related policy instruments and strengthening our relationship with the government and other stakeholders working in the public interest.
The implementation of the GBF targets by national governments through National Biodiversity Strategies
and Action Plans (NBSAPs) is an important entry point for strengthening ACB ‘s work. The ACB shared its experience, knowledge, and expertise from the CBD space with African CSOs involved in food systems transition work.
We have continued to produce in-depth research and analysis, build alliances, strengthen public action and advocacy, contribute to discourse and policy shifts to limit corporate power and build enabling environments to strengthen farmer seed and food systems and agricultural biodiversity. This work is iterative and complex, with many moving parts. ACB has contributed towards shifted discourses and practices in society that have, in turn, contributed to a broad-based movement working towards the protection of agricultural biodiversity and farmer-managed seed systems (FMSS), agroecology, food sovereignty, collective action, and democracy.
Our efforts have been twofold: resisting the encroachment of industrial agriculture by critically analysing and deconstructing corporate-driven narratives while simultaneously championing solutions. These solutions include the urgent transition to sustainable energy sources and agroecological food systems, grounded in practical, evidence-based approaches.
We have learned that networking is a crucial force for driving change and knowledge creation among local partners and stakeholders. Through our connections, the ACB’s influence has expanded regionally and continentally, reinforcing our commitment to shaping a more just and sustainable food future for Africa.
We extend our deepest gratitude to all our donors for their unwavering support and partnership. Your collaboration has been instrumental in allowing us to expand and deepen the interconnections between our long-standing programme areas and emerging global challenges. With your support, we have produced pioneering work on the complex interplay between food systems, biodiversity, and climate change, emphasising the need for these issues to be tackled holistically rather than in isolation.
Thank you to Bread for the World, Development Cooperation Agency of the Austrian Catholic Children’s Movement (DKA), New Venture Fund and RSF Social Finance / 11th Hour, Porticus/ Stiftung Auxilium, Swedbio/Stockholm Resilience Fund, Swift Foundation, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and Thousand Currents.
We would also like to also express our gratitude to our dedicated staff and the individuals and organisations that we have partnered with this year. Our stakeholders and partners can be found on our website.
HIGHLIGHTS
Ongoing engagement in the CBD’s Post-2020 GBF – participating in various meetings and supporting work on discussions on the outcomes, particularly regarding implementing targets relating to food systems.
Ongoing engagement with the SA government to provide critical inputs and critiques to cross-sectorial plans and strategies (agriculture, biodiversity, climate change, food systems).
Participation in the CBD’s 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), preceded by national-level preparation with the SA government and in stakeholder meetings, submitting comments on Synthetic biology, Risk Assessment, and the outcomes of the multidisciplinary Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (mAHTEG).
Participation in COP 16 of the CBD in Cali, Colombia, at the end of October, and support of the participation of a government official at COP.
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP), which aligns with the Kunming–Montreal GBF: provided input on the draft plan and participated in a validation meeting in April.
New Breeding Technologies, Digital Tools, Farmers’ Rights, and Regulation: Implications for Smallholder Farmers’ Seed and Food Systems – ACB hosted this meeting in June, attended by CSO partners and experts from 17 countries and three regions.
Black Box Biotechnology – Integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Synthetic Biology: Addressing the risks, hype, and inequities underpinning generative biology – released a briefing paper and co-hosted a webinar with Third World Network (TWN), ETC Group in September, attended by many governments and stakeholders ahead of the Conference of Parties (COP) 16.
Massive win after a prolonged legal battle, when the Supreme Court of Appeal in ACB vs Monsanto/Bayer and the State set aside the approval of the application by Monsanto, now Bayer, for commercial release of its allegedly drought-tolerant GM maize, MON87460.
BIODIVERSITY/ AGROBIODIVERSITY
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
(CBD) PROCESSES
Engagement with the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) 26
The ACB is one of the only African CSOs that has been monitoring the key issues under the CBD, which has led us to take a leading role on raising awareness on emerging biosafety issues on the continent, such as pertaining to synthetic biology (Synbio) and gene drives.
ACB research and advocacy officer Sabrina Masinjila attended SBSTTA 26, held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 13-18 May, where Parties convened to discuss risk assessment for genetically engineered (GE) gene drive mosquitoes. Attending was crucial since the key agenda items related to Synbio, risk assessment and management, biodiversity and health, detection, and identification of living modified organisms (LMOs), and the monitoring framework, which are important for agricultural biodiversity and biosafety discussions.
Masinjila participated in a pre-SBSTTA workshop and made a statement on behalf of the CBD Alliance (CBDA) in favour of the mAHTEG and broad horizon scanning,
monitoring, and assessment, which was supported by Egypt and Moldova. However, countries including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia blocked work on assessment and regulation for Synbio organisms and the extension of the mAHTEG. In addition, there was a blocking of deeper assessment of emerging trends of AI in relation to Synbio, self-spreading vaccines, and engineered gene drives. Under risk assessment, despite the mAHTEG developing draft voluntary guidance for engineered gene drive organisms, challenges arose due to problem formulation methods and the pathway to harm. Disappointingly, the Africa group, represented by Zimbabwe, did not strongly support and defend the mAHTEG and Synbio text remained in brackets, and was sent forward to the CBD’s COP 16 for further consideration.
The ACB participated in side events and was among the panellists in, Priorities in Synthetic Biology: An overview of latest developments, risks, power dynamics, and ethics. The ACB also participated in a press conference and workshop on gene drives organised by Save our Seeds and Pollinis at the Alliance Française in Nairobi on 17 May, where Masinjila gave a presentation, Overview of gene drive projects in different countries in Africa and the key player pushing for gene drive adoption. This was reported by several media houses.1
Strikingly, under the auspices of the CBD and its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, there is a lack of internationally recognised biosafety risk assessment and management for gene drive organisms. Thus, gene drive projects are being rolled out in the absence of internationally agreed biosafety standards for risk assessment and management during the contained use experimental phase as well as for open releases.
Masinjila further wrote a blog, Expansion of gene drive mosquito projects in Africa: International and national biosafety regulations are urgently needed, including the right to say No! 2 which builds on our resistance and awareness raising of efforts to deploy gene-drive mosquitoes, particularly targeting malaria-carrying Anopheles mosquitoes, that have been underway for some years, especially in West Africa, and are gaining traction recently in East Africa. This blog was published as an article in the CBDA’s online newsletter, ECO.3
Before that, she participated in a Synbio working group and preparatory meeting of the CBDA on 11-12 May. These meetings were crucial for strategising on the way forward based on key outcomes of the ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG) on Synbio and Risk Assessment.
Due to the risk of losing the mAHTEG on Synbio, ACB has been in discussions with other partners to strengthen the positions of several governments.
South Africa (SA) stakeholder meetings in preparation for SBSTTA 26
ACB was also invited by the SA government to participate in stakeholder meetings; a general meeting on 4 April, and a follow-up that focused on biosafety agenda items, on 19 April. ACB stressed the need for a precautionary approach and regulation and policy for emerging trends identified by the mAHTEG, underpinned by voluntary guidance on risk assessment for engineered gene drive organisms. We also wrote to ask the government about the linkages between gene-edited crops and the SA National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES) and submitted recommendations in terms of SA’s position on the biosafety agenda items.
Implementation of GBF: Key issues for transformation of agriculture / food systems in Zambia, Tanzania, and Kenya
After SBSTTA, ACB in collaboration with the Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA-K) co-hosted a regional meeting in Nairobi from 30-31 May that brought together CSOs and government representatives as well as an expert on the GBF, Third World Network (TWN)’s Lim Li Ching, to build capacity and share on the key elements and issues that interface with the transformation of food systems.4
We discussed how biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and FMSS can be integrated into agroecology and food systems; and provided an opportunity for governments to acknowledge CSO critiques of corporate industrial agro-food systems as an impetus for a just agroecological transition. The financing and debt issues also came out strongly.
Artifical intelligence (AI)/ Synthetic biology (Synbio) briefing and webinar
In September, ACB spearheaded a collaborative effort towards the production of a briefing paper for Parties and other stakeholders, addressing the integration of Synbio with AI, and laying out new developments for food and agriculture, providing negotiators with pertinent information for the upcoming COP 16 negotiations.
The briefing was generated in partnership with Jim Thomas, Scan the Horizon,5 in English, French, and Spanish,6 addressing ‘generative’ AI tools, better known for text chatbots such as ChatGPT, which are now being applied to generate novel digital sequences for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and proteins. On the subject, we held a tri-lingual webinar on 12 September with TWN and ETC Group that included speakers from government and civil society.7
Florian Rabitz
Jim Thomas
Lim Li Ching
ACB director Mariam Mayet and Masinjila participated in COP 16 along with other meetings in Cali, Colombia, from 21 October to 1 November, with a notably sharp rise in attendance of participants from banking, pesticide, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries, with delegations like Brazil and the Gulf states including representation from agribusiness and the fossil fuel industries, respectively. Several contact groups were established, especially on prominent SBSTTA recommendations but, unfortunately, negotiations about financing were not finalised and key decisions were not adopted.
There were many discussions on Article 8 (j), which deals with Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and their traditional knowledge in biodiversity conservation, whose working group has been active for many years. Significant emphasis was on biodiversity financing, especially in decisions related to digital sequence information (DSI), resource mobilisation and financial mechanisms, with these rooms packed to the brim in the quest for obtaining a deal to establish a funding mechanism separate from the existing GBF, which many parties feel is not working for them. Contentions remained regarding the lack of commitment by developed countries to provide resources for biodiversity financing and, unfortunately, key financing decisions on DSI, financial mechanism, and resource mobilisation were not adopted due to the suspension of the COP meeting.
In terms of biosafety and risk assessment, CSOs felt the voluntary guidance on gene drive organisms was not sufficiently precautionary but this received very little push-back from the Parties. However, a good win was the inclusion of a conflict of interest in the AHTEG that was subsequently established.
Synbio continued to be polarising, with Target Malaria and the biotech industry attending in full force. There was a big defeat for CSOs since horizon scanning, monitoring, and assessment processes have been curtailed, with only a broad recommendation remaining to develop a thematic action plan to support capacity building and development. We are concerned that we can expect industry to pour vast amounts of money into Synbio activities, especially on the continent, and mostly on genome editing and gene drive experiments.
Also, very disappointingly, few gains were achieved in terms of ensuring that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety will apply to genome editing and its resultant GMOs/LMOs. The discussions stalled when a debate arose regarding the definitions of LMOs and modern biotechnology under the Protocol.
Regarding DSI, although there is the Cali Fund, ostensibly to hold the contributions by users who benefit directly or indirectly from the use of DSI on genetic resources, only a minuscule amount has been agreed to as contributions from the commercialisation of DSI, which many view as a capitulation to digital biopiracy.
ACB participated in regular strategy meetings under the Synbio working group and numerous side events to support partner organisations and those on issues relevant to our work. These included the CBDA-hosted Forum on Finance and Biodiversity, which dealt with issues related to reforming the international financial architecture for biodiversity on debt and tax justice issues.
ACB produced two articles for the CBDA’s online news portal, ECO, to contribute to COP 16 discussions:
• Just transition pathways for CBD’s COP 16 and beyond8
• High Cour t in SA invokes the Cartagena protocol’s Precautionary Principle in revoking the approval of Monsanto’s MON87460 maize9
Harmful subsidies, debt, and financing for biodiversity in Africa
Target 18 of the GBF calls for the elimination, phasing out, or reform of environmentally and socially harmful subsidies, and a scaling up of positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, with a target of reducing harmful subsidies by USD 500 billion annually by 2030.
In the face of severe shortfalls in the funding of environmental protection, re-orienting harmful subsidies is one possible source of funds. However, the issue is highly complex, as subsidies can be differentiated into those that subsidise corporate profit and those that enable access to essential goods and services, such as energy or food, for marginalised individuals and groups.
In October, we produced a briefing on structural obstacles to effectively fund environmental protection, as well as the threats and opportunities.10 Solutions for financing environmental protection cannot be considered separately from systemic reform of the international financial architecture or an end to African debt peonage. Harmful subsidies have been estimated to be over USD 2.6 trillion per year, with the bulk going to fossil fuels (40%) and agriculture (23%). On top of this, another estimated USD 2.6 trillion to USD 5 trillion of environmentally harmful private investments are made annually.
These amounts far outweigh both the funding requirements for comprehensive biodiversity protection – estimated at USD 722 billion to USD 967 billion a year – and the actual funding flows to environmental and biodiversity protection. The latter is estimated at around USD 124 billion to USD 165 billion a year, resulting in a shortfall of 83% or more. Most of the current funding comes from the domestic public sector, with only a trickle from international public finance or the private sector.
Multi-stakeholder workshops in Kenya on the CBD and the GBF
From 18-20 September, Masinjila attended a workshop in Gilgil, Kenya, hosted by the Seed Savers Network, where she presented an introduction to the CBD and led a plenary discussion on matters arising and key priorities from the NBSAPs.11
This was followed by a further meeting to develop a strategy for grassroots organisations to effectively engage in the CBD and actualise the GBF, also addressing Kenya’s progress in developing an NBSAP.12 Masinjila made three presentations: An introduction to the CBD; An introduction to the GBF and linkages to agricultural biodiversity, FMSS, and agroecology; and Key outcomes from SBSTTA 26 and topics to be discussed at COP 16.
Kenya is set to adopt all the GBF targets but also has some additional proposals based on its national priorities, such as the inclusion of plastic pollution, wildlife, and human conflicts. Kenya Seed Savers Network presented a policy brief on FMSS and a model for accessing registered but un-commercialised seed varieties from public institutions. The field visit of the learning centre included seeing the nurseries where seed germination trials are done and a seed bank where indigenous seeds and accessions from other countries are stored.
CONTINENTAL PROCESSES
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) as a means to actualise GBF targets
GBF targets are predominantly to be implemented at the national level through NBSAPs. However, most governments have yet to begin the process of reviewing these plans, with the issue of financing for biodiversity being critical. Through capacity building provided by ACB, CSOs will engage with their national governments on interlinked issues and strengthen the understanding of the GBF’s targets, particularly those connected to food systems, and explore effective implementation strategies.
The ACB followed up with partners working closely with their governments on the review of NBSAPs; in Kenya – BIBA-K, Tanzania –Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO) and Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA), and Zambia – Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB). Most governments had not even started this process despite indicating that CSOs would be able to participate in stakeholder consultations on the process and share inputs.
ACB continued to work closely with partners in the three countries, sharing key outcomes from SBSTTA and COP 16.
Left to Right: Nasma Musonda, Care for Nature, Zambia; Pessa Kusaaga, PELUM Tanzania; Musonda Kapena, Namfuna Conservation Trust, Zambia
SOUTHERN AFRICAN PROCESSES
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP)
The ACB was invited to provide input on the draft BSAP and attend a validation meeting on 8-10 April in Cape Town. We highlighted challenges with the negotiation and implementation of global agreements, as well as the potential for action on sustainable agriculture, biodiversity restoration, and sustainable use.
We raised alternatives of the “polluter pays principle” and justice and equity-based approaches, which were well received, and proposed the reallocation of harmful agricultural input subsidies towards biodiversityfriendly input production and distribution. This takes forward ACB’s long-term work on the farm input subsidy programmes (FISPs) in the region.
Comments on SA’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (NFNSP) and National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES)
The ACB met with the SA Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) on 18 April to assess opportunities to engage with the development of the next iteration of the NBSAP. Officials indicated that the department is under-resourced and, as a result, will only add a few selected indicators and targets from the GBF. DFFE invited the ACB to look at the Biodiversity Finance Plan and we made comments, which will inform further work on wider environmental financing issues.
Among the critiques of SA’s strategies, ACB reviewed and submitted comments on this Bill that essentially streamlines the current Act but does not make significant changes. We proposed strengthening participation and prior informed consent, as well as more explicit requirements to protect customary and traditional rights on bioprospecting and access and benefit sharing.
The ACB also attended a meeting to discuss revisions to the NFNSP on March 12, convened by Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform (DALRRD). With ACB being one of only two CSOs present, we underscored the need for wider agroecology networks to be involved. Then on 4 April, we submitted comments on the draft NBES, developed in the context of the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity, which ACB submitted in 2022. We noted that while opening the biodiversity economy to previously disadvantaged individuals and communities is a step forward, it remains within the context of the commodification of nature and a profit-driven economic model.
Boosting NBSAPs through agroecology – peer-to-peer exchange
Masinjila was invited by Biovision to participate in this meeting from 9-10 May on how to integrate the food systems approach through agroecology in the NBSAPs, by focusing on country experiences and learnings through facilitated discussions among peers that will lead to the launch of a handbook to capture discussions from these meetings.
SEED POLICY WORK IN AFRICA AND SA
Comments on Implementation of Article 9 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)
Nyéléni regional and global process
The ACB, represented by Masinjila, participated in the Nyéléni Africa Consultation from 13-15 July in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, following the Nyéléni meeting in Rome in June 2023. Discussions centred on food sovereignty for justice and peace; democratising the food system and our societies and resisting the advancement of fascism, power, and impunity of transnational companies; and food sovereignty for the defense and realisation of people’s rights. Ultimately, the aim is to develop global synthesis aligned with the struggles and priorities of the different regions and sectors. ACB is part of the drafting team for the Nyéléni Regional Declaration and a member of the methodology group, tasked with preparations for the global convergence in India in 2025. The June edition of the Nyéléni newsletter includes Mayet’s testimony regarding this.13
The ACB submission was based on previous submissions made during the sitting of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Farmers’ Rights (AHTEG-FR) for eight years, which has disappointingly led to no implementation, and a dominant interpretation of farmers’ rights to only refer to exceptions that allow farmers to save and reuse propagating material of protected varieties (for private and noncommercial use) within mostly draconian seed and plant variety protection (PVP) laws. The ACB will continue to participate in South-South consultations organised by the Secretariat.
International Farmer Seeds Gathering 2024
Mayet and Masinjila participated in the fourth International Farmer Seeds Gathering in Antibes, France, from 3-5 October, which attracted more than 300 farmers, researchers, organisations, and citizens from 60 countries to discuss technical, environmental, social, and economic issues involving preserving, multiplying, and distribution of peasant seeds.14
The main objective of the meeting was to share knowledge and know-how associated with heirloom seeds and organising resistance to the agro-industry. Two days were spent on field visits to host farms. ACB participated and spoke in three workshops:
1. Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) applied to farmer seeds systems: an option for ensuring the quality of farmer seeds put into circulation
2. Patents on Plants: implications for breeders, agricultural biodiversity and farmers’ rights and possible solutions for Europe and Africa
3. Patented GMOs hidden to give agribusiness total control of the food chain
Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)’s third Pan-African Seed Conference
Masinjila represented ACB in Niamey, Niger, from 21-22 August in this collaborative space on seed. Topics included: the contribution of seed governance systems to achieving food and nutrition security in Africa; improving seed governance tools to define public policies for seed sovereignty; and strengthening synergies among seed sovereigntists across Africa.
ACB presented a keynote speech on the history and implications of seed regulations on smallholder farmers and FMSS. Other presentations were on seed harmonisation processes, with ACB’s work being referenced numerous times. Given the failure of seed harmonisation processes, a key question was how to ensure that funding is directed to FMSS. Ethiopia has a new Seed Proclamation Act that contains enabling provisions for further measures to be developed to allow the registration of farmer varieties while Zambia is developing measures to allow it. Alternative seed certification standards such as the participatory guarantee system (PGS) are being used in Mali and Burkina Faso and have an interesting case study of farmer seed multiplication and exchange, which is supported by the government. The outcomes of the meeting were reflected in a declaration, revolving around the continental campaign “Seed is Life”.
Seed working group meeting in Tanzania and roadmap to protect FMSS / agricultural biodiversity in Zanzibar
Masinjila was invited to attend a meeting on 11-12 November hosted by TABIO and Iles de Paix to enhance members’ collective efforts towards sustainable food systems and effective advocacy. ACB was tasked with presenting at the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 1991 and advocating to take forward farmers’ rights, with Tanzania having adopted this restrictive regime. The Registrar mentioned that they had granted approvals for the registration of PVP to 148 varieties but did not disclose how many were foreign and how many local.
A vigorous debate ensued on the lack of alternative criteria for the recognition and registration of farmer varieties, despite the government’s previous agreement to develop criteria. Participants also discussed a draft strategy for advocacy linking seed to the National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy (NEOAS).
Building on the collaborative work between ACB and MVIWATA from 2023, a concept note and work plan was developed on the involvement and input, including technical expertise, required to assist the Ministry of Agriculture in developing its Seed Act in Zanzibar. The ministry had requested technical and financial expertise, and this process is ongoing, with a special interest in the development of legislation that supports FMSS and implements farmers’ rights (FR). The ACB provided funding to MVIWATA to hold consultations with farmers.
Validation Workshop on Policy Recommendations for FMSS in Zambia
Mayet attended this meeting in Zambia from 14-15 October, hosted by the African Union Commission – Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Blue Economy and Environment, in collaboration with the Africa Union Development Agency’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDANEPAD) to discuss findings from a recent study on FMSS and to collaborate in formulating policy recommendations to support the future of these vital systems.
Continued engagement on FMSS, regulations of seed laws, and implementation of ITPGRFA in SA
Towards the end of 2023, the ACB, BioWatch, and the Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE), among other organisations, engaged extensively in government-hosted consultations on the draft Regulations to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act (PBRA) and Plant Improvement Act (PIA). Following this, DALRRD invited the coalition to collaborate to support FMSS and FR in SA. The ACB welcomed the invitation to submit proposals on how to work together on the protection of landraces and medicinal crops that go beyond critiquing the formal seed sector.
In preparation, a Seed Working Group strategy meeting was held on 12 February, hosted by ACB, to come up with a joint framework, followed by a meeting with DALRRD on 3 May, which included an update on the finalisation of the PBR and PIA regulations. The final regulations have not yet been published. This work will be developed further in consultation with the Seed Working group linking up with agroecology and GBFrelated work. Then Mayet attended another stakeholder consultation on 17 October where DALRRD presented ahead of SA’s accession to the Treaty, to receive feedback from civil society.
South African National Seed Organisation (SANSOR) meeting
By invitation, ACB’s Dr Stephen Greenberg gave a presentation on FMSS to the seed industry – SANSOR – on 25 April, with respondents from Stark Ayres and SA Grain Farmers Association. The presentation discussed the broad definition of FMSS, challenges facing smallholders, genetic uniformity versus genetic heterogeneity, issues with UPOV 1991 and the PBRA and PIA Regulations, and alternative standards and procedures for organic and farmer seed.
The outcome was some acknowledgment of the legitimacy of our concerns, especially on a more flexible system to accommodate smallholder farmers for whom the commercial seed laws are too rigid.
Seed film
The ACB’s production of its film on Seed is nearing completion and is scheduled to be released in 2025. The film will serve as a legacy project that looks back at ACB’s activism on the seed front over many years. We aim to explore the historical nature of the extraction of resources, knowledge, and wealth, capturing post-colonial realities in South Africa and neighbouring countries.
Reviving the use of local seeds in African farming
Mayet was featured on a SciDev podcast, Africa Science Focus, on 22 April, speaking about the importance of supporting and revitalising farmer seed systems in Africa.15
CORPORATE POWER IN THE AGRIFOOD SYSTEM
MONITORING EXPANSION OF GENETIC MODIFICATION (GM) IN SA
Groundbreaking judgment of Supreme Court of Appeal in ACB vs Monsanto/ Bayer and the State to determine whether Monsanto was required to submit an environmental impact assessment by the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). The SCA, in its judgment, noted that it was a relatively straightforward matter for the state to have adduced evidence that a determination was made one way or the other, but it had failed to do so.
After nine long years of arduous litigation by ACB, a full bench consisting of five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), sitting in Bloemfontein, SA, set aside several layers of decision-making regarding the approval of the application by Monsanto, now Bayer, for commercial release of its allegedly drought-tolerant GM maize, MON87460.16 Significantly, the SCA set aside the 2023 findings of the High Court, by Judge Tolmay, on the precautionary principle.17
The ACB has consistently maintained that the Executive Council: GMO Act (EC) merely rubber-stamped Monsanto’s application for authorisation, uncritically accepting its paucity of evidence that the GMO poses no threat to human health or the environment and ignoring the contrary expert evidence tendered by ACB’s experts. Unanimously, the SCA found that there was an abject failure by the EC to comply with a mandatory prescript contained in section 5(1)(a) of the GMO Act
This is the first judicial decision concerning GMO decision-making in South Africa and, as such, is precedent-setting, particularly since it sets aside three layers of decision-making – by the EC, the Appeal Board, and the Minister, as well as the 2023 High Court judgment of Justice Tolmay.
We are deeply grateful to the proficient and dedicated Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) team, which represented the ACB over these long years, and we are indebted to Professor Jack Heineman, Dr Angelika Hilbeck, and Dr Eva Sirinathsinji for their expert opinions and support. We also thank all our donors, partners, friends, and the public for walking this journey with us.
Notably, the litigation, spanning longer than eight years, has precluded Monsanto from commercially selling MON 87460 GM maize seeds as so-called climate change solutions to commercial farmers in SA and the rest of the Eastern, Western, and Southern African region.
Mayet comments:
“The finding is extremely significant because it brings into sharp relief the rubber-stamping nature of decision-making in South Africa concerning GMOs – something we have witnessed and resisted over the last 21 years – especially the failure to make a proper determination of the risk posed by GMOs to safeguard the constitutional right to an environment that is not detrimental to our health and well-being. This judgment has vindicated us and made these long years of struggle very worthwhile.”
From left to right: Legal Aid South Africa Senior Strategic Litigation Attorney Nzame Skibi, Advocate Nikki Stein, Scientific Consultant Dr Angelika Hilbeck, Advocate Kameshni Pillay and ACB Director Mariam Mayet
Regulation
of genome editing and new tech upheld in South Africa
SA’s Ag Minister overrules Industry and Appeal Board to uphold regulation of genome editing / new tech
In another victory, we welcomed the final decision taken by the SA Minister of Agriculture Ms Thoko Didiza, in terms of section 19 of the GMO Act of 1997, to uphold the October 2021 decision of the EC that the risk assessment framework existing for GMOs will also apply to new breeding techniques (NBTs), which make up a host of new genetic engineering technologies.18
In a double blow, the Minister’s decision rejects the challenge by a powerful consortium of agricultural industry actors, under the aegis of the Agricultural Business Chamber of SA (AGBIZ), which comprises the South African National Seed Organisation (SANSOR) and CropLife and further also rejects the findings of an Appeal Board, whose membership is secret – constituted by the Minister in terms of the GMO Act – which found in favour of the flimsy and tenuous arguments of the industry.
The ACB and other CSOs have been strenuously resisting the advance of these technologies for several years. We view NBTs as providing a new set of false solutions that will undoubtedly continue to exacerbate biodiversity loss while failing to produce healthier, more nutritious, or more diverse food for Africans, and failing to allow for better incomes or fairer prices for farmers. We think they should be banned, but at least we have helped to ensure they will be regulated.
The South African decision is a significant game-changer on the continent, which is facing a strong push to adopt novel GM technologies. Countries such as Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, and Nigeria have already adopted approaches not to regulate these technologies in terms of biosafety legislation.
Celebrating 20 years of resistance against GMOs in Africa
The ACB launched its first podcast under the “Legacy” series, providing an opportunity to celebrate the past two decades of ACB’s advocacy and activism, with a particular focus on resisting the introduction of GMOs into our agricultural and food systems in Africa. Hosted by Masinjila, it featured Mayet in conversation with Haidee Swanby, who worked for ACB for more than a decade in the earlier years.19 Linked to this, ACB published a timeline report: Two decades of laying out the facts.20
MONITORING GM AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES WORK ON THE CONTINENT
Resistance against the Gene Drive Mosquito project in Tanzania
In response to the Gene Drive Mosquito Experiments under the Transmission Zero project in Tanzania, CSOs came together on 23 February, facilitated by Masinjila, and then drafted letters and interacted with the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI), a partner in the project, and the Vice President’s Office which is the National Focal Point for Biosafety. Further, in April, ACB, with support from several experts, organised a capacity-building webinar for Tanzanian CSOs.21 This builds on the extensive work done by ACB on gene drive mosquitoes on the continent and aims to support Tanzanian civil societies to push back against such risky technologies.
South-South collaborative activism to stop growing / importation of GM wheat
No to GM wheat! Food sovereignty alliance from Latin America, Africa, and Asia approaches seven UN Special Rapporteurs for urgent intervention to block the cultivation and trade of GM wheat HB4
In January, a Global South collective of food sovereignty activists, social movements of peasants and indigenous peoples, and academics from Latin America, Africa, and Asia sent a letter in English, Spanish, and Portuguese to seven United Nations Special Rapporteurs dealing with human rights, the environment, food, toxic chemicals, water and sanitation, poverty, indigenous peoples, and health, requesting intervention on GM wheat and the widespread failure in biosafety governance.22
GM wheat HB4 was developed by the Argentinian company Bioceres and purported to be droughttolerant, and requires the use of the agrotoxin glufosinate-ammonium. Approval to grow this wheat has been granted in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay and approval to import it has been granted in South Africa, Colombia, Nigeria, New Zealand, and Indonesia, since 2020, suggesting a widespread failure in biosafety governance across the globe. In our joint submission, which was supported by over 100 organisations, we raised grave concerns regarding the planting and consumption of GM wheat, in that it violates several human rights, including the right to life and livelihoods; health; adequate food, and food sovereignty; a balanced and pollution-free environment; access to land and territory; and the right to self-determination of peoples and local communities that survive off the environment and nature.
Further to these human rights violations, concerns have been raised about transgenic seeds generally, which are accompanied by technological packages
that include harmful agrotoxins, over which a handful of multinational agrochemical companies hold a monopoly, under circumstances where farmers and millions of hectares of land are captive in a highly concentrated market.
According to the alliance, introducing GM wheat into agricultural and food systems is akin to putting out a fire with gasoline, since it will advance the industrial agriculture frontier into marginal areas and local communities. This will, in turn, put greater pressure on fragile ecosystems and encourage further deforestation, land enclosures, and land and resource grabs, undermining the right to self-determination of local and indigenous communities, especially in Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay.
The group’s substantive submission addresses the fallacy promoted by Bioceres that GM wheat HB4 is either drought tolerant or a solution to climate change, pointing to misleading and unscientific claims and marketing, and commercial failures of transgenic traits purporting to confer drought tolerance, especially in Argentina and South Africa.
South-South Strategy Meeting on GM Wheat
Following this action, the ACB hosted a strategy meeting with the Latin America group and Nigerian CSOs in June to continue engagements. Groups from Argentina shared on their resistance to the growing of at least 50,000ha of GM wheat in their country, citing the need to protect indigenous communities from more agrotoxin exposure. Hilbeck and Sirinathsinji provided expert support in unpacking the HB4 drought-tolerant trait and failures in other crops. Principally, the follow-up work will be done in Latin America where the GM wheat is being cultivated.
Objection on confined field trial application GM HB4 wheat
The ACB then continued to monitor and track GM applications of new crops and traits. In August, ACB learned of an application made by Trigall Genetics SA for field trials for GM HB4 wheat in three locations in the Western Cape.23 Previously, in our resistance to the application for importing this wheat, ACB was supported by 86 organisations from Africa and around the world in its submission to the EC, arguing that the EC had failed to adhere to the precautionary principle and adopt a risk-averse and cautious approach when it approved the entry of GM wheat into the country –wheat being an important staple food in SA consumed by millions of people daily.
This new application is a game-changer since, if approved, it would eventually lead to the commercial cultivation of GM wheat in SA, thus we submitted an objection. The EC has not yet decided on whether to give this application the go-ahead, but we learned that GM wheat has been approved unconditionally for commercial growing in the US.
South-South regional meeting on new breeding technologies (NBTs)
ACB hosted a meeting in June, attended by CSO partners and experts from 17 countries and three regions to unpack what these NBTs are, the new business models, what is in the pipeline, and updates on the regulatory approaches in Africa and Latin America, and what the implications are for smallholder farmers and their seed systems. Deep discussions were held on the different approaches countries have taken to de/regulate the NBTs and what the concerns and risks are for these renewed false solutions being proposed for the food system. ACB will continue to work on new technologies and support partners in unpacking new guidelines that have been developed to deregulate new technologies in Nigeria, Malawi, and Ghana. One outcome was the publishing of two factsheets on new technologies in Africa.24
Support against the general release of Bt-GT cotton application in Ethiopia
In May, the ACB assisted the Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action (MELCA) to engage with the Ethiopia Biosafety Committee regarding an application for the general release of Bt-GT cotton. We provided comprehensive comments highlighting the failure of Bt Cotton, based on assessing the field trial documents. In addition, the ACB also showed that there was very little difference between the Bt-GT cotton when compared with non-transgenic varieties for several parameters including overall yield, in all four trial sites. The commentary also referenced widely documented research on the spread of insect and weed resistance as interlinked with the use of GM crops and the impacts of glyphosate on human health having been linked to reproductive and developmental toxicity.
AGROECOLOGY
Collapse of farm input supply programmes (FISPs) in Southern Africa
We commissioned in-depth research in Malawi and Zambia, producing two briefing papers, Zambia’s collapsed food system: never-ending debt, climate shocks, biodiversity loss, and FISPs — the indispensability of transitioning to agroecology, and, The decline of FISPs in Malawi: debt, corruption, and hunger — What future for smallholder farmers and realising agroecology? in July and August respectively. The papers explore the role of the FISPs in both driving ecological degradation and limiting the (re)emergence of ecological farming systems able to deliver both nutrition and decent livelihoods. They call for a longer-term approach that can systematically support farmers to regenerate the soil, conserve biological resources, and diversify production based on local need and preference.25
Assessment of regional agroecology strategies. Kenya and Tanzania
In early 2024, the ACB team embarked on an assessment of agroecology strategies in Eastern and Southern Africa, particularly Kenya and Tanzania. This exercise aimed to review to what extent these are in line with the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) 13 agroecology principles but also use these as lessons learned for other countries developing their strategies. Several other countries, including Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, have already embarked on processes for developing such strategies, which serve as frameworks outlining specific policy interventions aimed at accelerating food systems transformation through agroecology.
Tanzania has officially launched its NEOAS which is currently under implementation. A general assessment of the NEOAS showed that it was heavily skewed towards organic agriculture and had a huge emphasis on exports and premium markets, including certification and standards.
In Kenya, several county governments have developed their agroecology policies, and, at the national level, there is a plan to develop a similar process, with strategic objectives focused on empowering local communities, small-scale food producers, and stakeholders to embrace agroecological principles and practices. However, much of the budget remains directed towards subsidies for synthetic fertilisers and hybrid maize seeds, promoting high-input industrial agriculture, potentially with long-term negative consequences. The ACB will continue to draw lessons from these strategies for the agroecology movement in Africa.
URBAN AND PERI-URBAN FOOD NUTRITION
Ultra-processed food (UPF) in Africa series
In 2023, ACB embarked upon the production of a series of factsheets on UPF in Africa. During the reporting period, we have continued with publishing the latter five of 10 factsheets.
Exploitation of socioeconomic inequities drives UPF consumption and malnutrition, the fifth factsheet, delves into the complexity of socioeconomic inequities and argues that these are being perversely exploited by the UPF giants to drive the purchase and consumption of UPF in Africa. This is overlayed by the changing socio- and politicoeconomic conditions, which provide further market opportunities for UPF as more accessible, affordable, and desirable food options in both urban and rural contexts.
In the sixth factsheet, Rising ultra-processed food consumption deepens Africa‘s biodiversity, climate, and pollution crises, we briefly discuss how UPF is impacting ecological health and functioning, and driving the interconnected biodiversity, climate, and pollution crises.
In the seventh factsheet, Rising UPF consumption in Africa will drive agricultural biodiversity loss further, we dive into how UPF production and consumption are contributing to the decline in agricultural biodiversity, a crucial component of biodiversity.
A malnourished food system: Harmful impacts of ultra-processed food consumption on health and nutrition in Africa, the eighth factsheet, we focus on the health impacts of UPF consumption. There are clear and direct associations between increased UPF consumption and an increase in a range of diet- and nutrition-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
In the ninth factsheet, Shortcomings of current UPF regulatory approaches: Time to phase out UPF to attain a just agroecological future, we discuss the current approaches to regulate the UPF industry by outlining the limitations of this approach and underscoring that these are only stop-gap measures.
The 10th and final factsheet considers the different dimensions of UPFs and highlights the serious environmental, social, economic, and health implications of the expansion of UPF consumption in Africa. ACB will be deepening this work by holding more dialogues with partners to discuss UPF issues linked to food and nutrition policies, linking it to biodiversity, climate change, health, etc., and also learn from other regions and countries about public policies. Mayet also wrote an article for FIAN Belgium on UPF in Africa.26
RESISTANCE AGAINST AGROTOXINS IN SA’S AGRICULTURE
Following on from years of strategic support of and involvement in resistance against the excessive use of pesticides in SA, momentum was gained on collaborative processes to put pressure on the government to reform the antiquated regulatory framework and raise awareness of the hazards to human and environmental health.
SA People’s Tribunal on Agrotoxins (SAPToA) takes shape
In preparation for the SAPToA, scheduled to take place in March 2025, which will principally be rooted in a struggle for social and environmental justice and the lived experience of impacted communities, the ACB supported preparatory meetings in Cape Town on 28-30 June and again on 29 August to 1 September. The Tribunal will provide a platform to showcase the work and campaigns in process; broadcast testimonies of those who have been affected by pesticides and feature experts presenting on the risks to human and environmental health. Ultimately, this is an opportunity to hand down a judgment that represents a radical and transformative agenda to be used beyond the tribunal towards a transition out of industrial agriculture. The ACB has continued to provide political guidance for this process and provides a catalytic role for organisations working on the ground with impacted communities, being represented on the Steering Committee.
Further to this, the ACB drafted a submission on behalf of all the groups involved in the Tribunal, on draft SA Regulations on Hazardous Chemicals and made inputs into a strong political media release, on 5 July.27 The day after, grassroots organisations in the Western Cape organised a picket march to parliament. Substantial media coverage was obtained for the submission, the media statement, and the picket.
Civil society coalition calls out government failure to regulate agrotoxin, Terbufos
In October, SA reeled in shock at the tragic deaths of six children, after they had eaten snacks bought at a spaza shop in Naledi, Soweto, which was confirmed by the Department of Health to be caused by a highly hazardous pesticide (HHP) called Terbufos. This deadly agrotoxin is banned in many countries and only licensed for specific agricultural instances in SA. Soon, scores of other hospital emergencies related to children eating from school feeding schemes and spaza shops, emerged in the media. The pesticide industry, under the auspices of CropLife, aided by the government, used this tragedy to conflate the incidences of food contaminated by deadly toxins with foodborne illnesses caused by expired or otherwise spoiled or rotten foods, and spaza shop owners became scapegoated for the much bigger issue of regulatory failure. We put out a joint press release, placing the blame where it should be, on government and industry.28
Call for a ban of Terbufos and HHPs addressed to Agriculture Minister
Then, on 22 November, we sent a petition to the government calling for an immediate ban on Terbufos and the institution of mechanisms for banning all HHPs within three months.29 We highlighted the unacceptable presence of HHPs on the South African market, and the failure of the relevant Departments to carry out their duty to effectively regulate agrotoxins. In addition, we continued to express alarm that the chemical industry, CropLife, had immediately created a narrative in the media to place the blame on spaza shops, the lifeblood of most communities in SA, fanning xenophobic flames. We then reminded the government that these poisonings are not novel, but have been going on for decades.
Following the submission of the petition, on 5 December, a group of organisations, academics, and unions, including ACB, sent a 16-page letter of demand to Minister of Agriculture, Mr. John Steenhuisen, reminding him of our call for him to immediately ban Terbufos.30 We laid out a history of ongoing abject regulatory failure and commercial conflicts of interest in the governance of hazardous substances that have resulted in highly toxic, restricted chemicals ending up in domestic settings and informal food outlets.
To amplify this call, we launched an extensive media campaign to expose the persistent regulatory failures and conflicts of interest that continue to jeopardise public health and safety.31
Call for a review of registration of agrotoxin 2,4-D
Years of resistance and awareness raising continued when, towards the end of 2023, we submitted a substantial document calling for a review of the registration of the agrotoxin 2,4-D, within the framework of the authorisation of GM maize resistant to this toxic chemical to be cultivated commercially.
We received a response from the Registrar of Act 36 for clarification and further information on the health impacts of 2,4-D, in January. Then, with the support of an experienced environmental lawyer, Angela Andrews, we sent a substantive document in March, based on new scientific studies linking 2,4-D to cancer and endocrine disruption, and the ecological impacts on non-target plants and contamination of water bodies. With no response forthcoming, we put pressure on the Registrar to respond, which finally culminated in sending a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen asking for a response, as required by fair administrative justice, on 6 December.32
The ACB has opposed applications for the authorisation of the use of several GM events that are engineered to resist herbicides such as 2,4-D in SA for the past 10 years, raising concerns surrounding regulatory failures, herbicide residue risks, environmental and health concerns and entrenchment of corporate control of agriculture in South Africa.
Thus, we continue to demand transparent, inclusive, public assessment of the environmental, socio-economic, and food safety impacts of GMOs and their associated chemicals, based on the precautionary principle, as embedded in international and SA environmental law, taking especially into account that maize is a staple food in SA for tens of millions of people. In addition, we will continue to pressure the government to ban HHPs and transition out of industrial agriculture, with 2025 set to be explosive on that front.
Industry-hosted webinar on gene editing
The Gene editing technology stakeholder engagement forum was hosted on 25 April by the biotech industry. Although targeted at gene editing practitioners in Africa and mostly attended by pro-biotech industry participants – largely from university and research institutions in Africa with a focus on gene editing, the AUDA-NEPAD, and CropLife, ACB ‘s Masinjila attended. We learned about the monitoring and challenging of corporate expansion in African food systems. Key actors mentioned include the African Union High-level Panel of Experts and the African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), which supports genome editing as crucial among new breeding techniques and helps build biosafety frameworks.
Experts meet on false solutions to the biodiversity crisis
Masinjila participated online in this meeting hosted by TWN from 26-28 March, which included sessions on financing for biodiversity, analysis of the strategy for resource mobilisation under Target 19 of the GBF, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations on market-based instruments that financialise nature. As a result and our continued horizon scanning, we have commenced our work on financing for biodiversity.
Agriculture in a changing climate: we only have a future with agroecology
In this op-ed for Table Media in January, Mayet explains how the current promotion of climatesmart agriculture as a climate solution is misleading, underscoring the need for agroecology in humanity’s future.33
JUST TRANSITION IN THE FOOD SYSTEM
Critical assessment of agricultural sector’s Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan (CCAMP)
ACB is working in a network of organisations to develop civil society approaches to climate adaptation and mitigation, which includes the development of a briefing paper on emissions in the SA food system and on consolidating a critical assessment and commentary of the agriculture sector’s CCAMP.
In a briefing released in November, Greenberg looks at the predicted impact of climate change on SA’s agri-food system, as one of a set of intersecting challenges. He argues that this calls for an integrated and systemic response across environmental, social justice, and economic diversification and democratisation. The paper ends with a call for the promotion of agroecology as a key framing and guiding approach for the South African agri-food sector as it adapts to the imperatives of climate change.34
Regional Women’s Faith Leader Environmental Advocacy Training (FLEAT)
The Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute (SAFCEI) brought together faith leaders from 11 countries from 16-18 July in Johannesburg to discuss environmental injustices and explore solutions from faith- and genderbased perspectives. Greenberg discussed just transitions in the Southern and East African food systems.35
Rural Women’s Assembly People’s Dialogue
Rural Women’s Assembly invited communities impacted by extractive industries from 10 Southern African countries to exchange on strategies to deal with extractive activities, including the green economy, at this dialogue in Johannesburg on 19 August. Mayet presented on agrarian extractivism and its intersections with other extractive sectors.
STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTNERSHIPS
ACB STAFF AND BOARD MEMBERS
We continued to forge new relationships that support our advocacy efforts alongside a diverse mix of long-standing and emerging partners. Stakeholders include farmers; CSOs, especially smallholder farmer associations; non-governmental organisations (NGOs); social movements working in the fields of smallholder agriculture, agroecology, seed, and biodiversity; governments; experts and researchers from public sector institutions; and donors.
We collaborate with numerous partners across the SADC region, the wider continent, and globally. Our strong connections to grassroots constituencies form the foundation for collective efforts on various regional processes and helps shape our advocacy in international policy spaces. Our partners are listed on our website.36
As of December 2024, the ACB had a staff complement of eight (seven full-time, 62.5% women, 75% black), consisting of:
Four research and advocacy (three women, three black)
Two communications (two women, one black)
Two administration and finance (two black)
Total operational staff: eight (five women, six black)
Programme staff:
Mariam Mayet, Executive Director
Dr Stephen Greenberg, Senior Research and Advocacy Officer
Sabrina Masiinjila, Research and Advocacy Officer (based in Tanzania)
Rutendo Zendah, Research and Advocacy Officer
Communications staff: Deidre May, Communications Coordinator
Research and Advocacy Officer Sabrina Masiinjila left the organisation at the end of December to pursue post-graduate studies.
ACB board members:
John Wilson, chairperson, based in Zimbabwe
Famara Diédhiou, based in Senegal
Mariann Bassey Orovwuje, based in Nigeria
Ray Patridge, based in South Africa
Barbara Ntambirweki, based in Uganda
Mariam Mayet, non-executive board member, based in South Africa
Governance and administration of resources
We continue to strive for overall efficiency and adaptability in terms of the management of our time, staff, and other resources. Our financial statements are available on request.
Networking and building alliances are essential for driving change and fostering knowledge creation among local partners and stakeholders. Consequently, ACB has maintained its influence regionally and across Africa, as we continue to facilitate partnerships and connections at the local, regional, and global levels.
In 2024, our social media and website performance demonstrated consistent growth and engagement, as our online presence continued to resonate within our networks and beyond. We expanded our reach and follower base across multiple channels, highlighting the strength of our online community and the significance of our work.
20,000+ website users (+85%)
45,000+ website views
136,000+ event count (+30%)
(Event count refers to the number of times users engaged with the website.)
FACEBOOK
Views: 34,400
Followers: 16,566
Reach: 95,900K (+170%)
(Reach is the number of people who saw any content from or about ACB’s Page)
YOUTUBE
Views: 2,733
Channel views: 41,537 since June 2017
INSTAGRAM
Followers: 402
Total views: 2,694
ALL INCREASES REFER TO YEAR-ON-YEAR GROWTH.
ACRONYMS
AI Ar tificial intelligence
AUDA-NEPAD Africa Union Development Agency’s New Partnership for Africa’s Development
BIBA-K Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya
BSAP Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
CBD UN Convention of Biological Diversity
CBDA Convention of Biological Diversity Alliance
CCAMP Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan
COP [CBD’s] Conference of the Parties
CSOs Civil society organisations
DALRRD SA Depar tment of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development
DSI Digital sequence information
EC SA Executive Council: GMO Act
FISPs Farm input subsidy programmes
FMSS Farmer managed seed systems
FR Farmers’ rights
GBF Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
GE Genetically engineered
GM Genetically modified
GMOs Genetically modified organisms
HHPs Highly hazardous pesticides
IHI Ifakara Health Institute
IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and local communities
ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
LMOs Living modified organisms
NBSAPs National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
NBTs New breeding techniques
NEOAS National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy
MAHTEG Multidisciplinary Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group
MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
PBRA SA Plant Breeders’ Rights Act
PIA SA Plant Improvement Act
SA South Africa
SADC Southern African Development Community
SANSOR South African National Seed Organisation
SCA SA Supreme Court of Appeal
SAPToA South African People’s Tribunal on Agrotoxins
SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice
