Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), Uganda Climate Change and Conflict

In 2007, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda declared climate change "an act of aggression by the rich against the poor". Perhaps for the first time an African leader had made the case that the effects of greenhouse gases produced in the industrialized North constituted an act of violence on the global South. If nothing else, Uganda was making a statement. While politicians in the United States Congress debated the very existence of global warming, extreme weather events were wreaking havoc in this poor east African nation. Uganda's history has been anything but tranquil and the process of democratization, nowhere near completion, has not been smooth. That being said, the problems arising from temperature and rainfall changes will push an already unstable country into more dire straits. Food security poses the most serious risk from climate change fallout and ironically the proposed solutions will make hunger worse and not better. As basic resources become more scarce and lucrative resources more profitable, the possibility of conflict mounts.

2. Description

INTRODUCTION

Achieving sustenance in poor countries often comes at a price to the local environment; Ugandans rely on staple crops grown on an industrial scale, they heat and cook with timber harvested from rainforests while refuse is simply washed "downstream". Negative feedback from these practices is beginning to intensify as local environs have no time to recover in the face of rapid population growth. Now add climate change to the equation. Although good governance and sustainability initiatives have the possibility of staving off a total collapse, it is more than likely that social stresses arising from this culmination of environmental and resource problems will eventually foment a conflict of some kind. The case study which follows highlights some potential conflict processes which begin at the ground level and slowly develop into areas of tension over the course of the next half century.

Multinationals like Monsanto are already pushing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) in the third world as part of their new green image. Proponents claim that drought resistant corn (still in the experimental stage) will help domestic farmers turn a higher yield and therefore develop the capacity to feed a growing population while having surpluses that can be exported. Monsanto, the developer of most GMO corn varieties has committed to providing Ugandan farmers with genetically modified seed royalty-free. Although this development appears to be in the interest of the people, it is perhaps only because poor farmers know so little about genetically engineered organisms.

Genetically modified crops are highly susceptible to disease and pests because they are alien organisms un-evolved to local conditions. This means that heavy pesticide and herbicide application are required for normal growth. Traditional fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are not suitable to GMO crops. Instead, special products that are sold only by the companies who have designed the crops are essential. These chemicals may be offered without payment at first but once GMO crops are planted, nothing else will be suited for the soil and handouts from agribusiness may dry up. The U.S.-based non-profit African Agricultural Technology Foundation, who is managing the GM corn program in Uganda has openly said that the "transgenic drought-tolerant maize seed will be sub-licensed to local seed companies royalty-free for a term or duration to be determined based on future product deployment agreements". (1) In effect, this means that farmers will become dependent on U.S. corporations to grow anything on their land and if they can't afford GM seed when the royalty-free period expires, their land will simply not be suitable for traditional crops.

Their choices will be to go into debt buying GMO crops indefinitely, relocate, or make a living in another occupation and purchase food that they would normally grow. None of these options are feasible for most Ugandan farmers and their circumstances just might be too much to bear.

A similar tragedy happened in India where farmers were cajoled into buying Monsanto cotton seeds that were bioengineered to kill pests. Farmers went deep into the red when they realized they had to also purchase fertilizers specifically engineered for their crop which had already been sown. When the farmers were prohibited from saving seeds, a necessary and culturally-important tradition, many farmers committed suicide to avoid the insurmountable debt they had incurred at the expense of agribusiness, their supposed ally. (2)

Aside from the social impact on farmers who unknowingly venture into the genetically modified seed market, there are also larger environmental and food scarcity issues which can be traced back to the introduction of genetically modified cereal crops such as corn. In the next 50 years, should Uganda choose to adopt GMO's on any scale, we will see a similar unfolding of events.

The overarching goal of drought-resistant corn is to inoculate Uganda's major cereal crop from extreme weather that would otherwise compromise productivity in an epoch of global warming. In other words, the motivation behind this new wave of biotechnology is to develop organisms that can be grown irrespective of climatic conditions. It is undeniable that Monsanto and other firms are close to developing varieties of major food crops that will meet this resiliency however growing these crops comes with a delayed environmental and social cost that far outweighs its prospective benefits.

The ramifications of GM crops taken together with Uganda's less predictable climate could just be devastating enough to produce a conflict of one kind or another. Therefore the introduction of drought-tolerant maize in Uganda ought to be circumspect given the long term effects that are associated with its initial adoption. (3) Another aspect of GM crops in Uganda that is cause for concern is the way by which GM maize was marketed to the Ugandan government. Agribusinesses in the United States have colluded with the Ugandan government to push an agenda they claim is in the national interest of Uganda.

Articles published in mock journals are perhaps the most obvious instance where the pursuit of wealth came disguised as an effort to combat hunger in Uganda. For instance, The National Crops Resources Research Institute (NACRRI) which exists as a conduit for agribusiness interests published an anonymously authored article in a journal with the Orwellian title Appropriate Technology. Research that views GMO's as appropriate in Africa comes from the vast network of agribusiness interests under the veil of government, the academy and the public good. The same propaganda was used to organize the first ever All-Africa Congress on Biotechnology, a body set up exclusively to destroy safety regulations that were based on the precautionary principle. Daniel Kamanga, the Communication Director of Africa Harvest (an organization dedicated to pushing biotechnology in developing countries) published an article in Nature Biotechnology claiming that "adopting a [commercial biotechnology] policy would mark a significant shift in a continent long paralyzed by anti-GM activities" (Kamanga, 2008, p.1209). This pseudo-academic network of agribusiness interests has effectively quelled any dissent to the GM revolution in Africa. As a result, Ugandan officials have approved field trials to determine whether the transgenic versions of several crops are associated with higher yields.

Although most of the international attention has focused on drought-tolerant maize in Uganda there are three other genetically engineered crops that the Ugandan government is considering---all are food staples except cotton which is primarily an export commodity. The commonality that all GM crops share is their potential to devastate the environment in such a dramatic way that existing security issues are confounded. In the past five years genetically modified versions of Cassava, Matooke (Bananas) and Maize have all been planted on Ugandan soil at the behest of well-meaning government officials, NGO's dedicated to getting GM crops into the pipeline and academics that have been recruited by large agriculture firms for their positions on GMO's. (4)

Unfortunately, the trials are being managed by the same networks affiliated with companies who own the drought-tolerant seed patents. More alarming is that the trials run for only one year. Apparently the "scientists" have decided that this period is sufficient to determine the long-term effects that these crops will have on human health, the economy and the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF GM CROPS IN UGANDA

In Figure 1 above, areas where GM crop trials have taken place or where they are currently underway are depicted. The word trials appears in quotations in the title because the scope of GM crop plantings are not always limited to their physical boundaries. Some plants which open-pollinate could compromise the genes from a traditional plant if crossed with one of the trial crops. Therefore, the area covered by the trials may in fact be larger if the crops are contaminating nearby farms where cotton, maize, cassava or bananas are grown.

In addition to the risks posed by contamination, there is also some evidence that GM corn and soy planting are associated with heavier pesticide application. Pesticides have a number of negative side-effects. Benbrook (2004) studied pesticide use in the United States in the first decade of GM crop introduction and found higher rates of pesticide application across the board and an alarming number of common weeds that had become resistant to glyphosate also known as "Round-up".

The sample frame for this study occurred at a time when the Midwest began to plant GM soy and corn on a massive scale. We might infer that the adoption of drought-resistant maize (which has yet to be developed) would have similar outcomes in Uganda. As we will see later, if farmers are forced to abandon GM agriculture after initialing buying-in, pesticide-resistant weeds (a.k.a. Superweeds) will surely devastate more crops when farmers return to planting conventional varieties of maize.

Figure 2, Nutrient Depletion in Africa due to Monoculture and Soil Erosion, 1993-1995

Source: Henao, J. & Baanante, C., (2001) as cited in Conway, G. Waage, J.& Delaney, S. 2010 Science and Innovation for Development. London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, p. 141.

Some scientists have spoken out about this alarming trend which would turn Uganda into a modern Dust Bowl. Instead of promoting the adoption of GMO's many soil scientists advocate for time tested techniques that would protect farms from drought such as rain water collection. Of course, this expense would be a luxury for most small farmers however a fraction of the overall cost spent on lobbying the GM cause in Uganda could have paid for such infrastructure many times over. With respect to the prospect of GM bananas in Uganda, Peter Melchett of the UK's Soil Association claims that "rotation is important in limiting the economic and social damage of crop failures. With GM, rotation is not an option." (5)

Perhaps more devastating than soil erosion and genetic contamination are the effects of genetically engineered crops as farmers either choose or are forced to transition back to conventional corn. Since their land will no longer be capable of supporting regular maize, they will be forced to find new land to cultivate. In Uganda arable land is scarce, so many will rely on slash and burn agriculture to carve out new land to farm. The results from such rapid and widespread deforestation could have profound impacts.

First and foremost, the rainforests are responsible for retaining moisture and without the forest to serve this ecological niche, more rainfall will evaporate leaving farmers with lower yields and Ugandans with less drinking water. Since most farmers do not have access to irrigation they rely solely on precipitation. Therefore the introduction of GM corn to mitigate drought-related food shortages may well intensify the effects of drought on agriculture in the long-term. This feedback or cycle is depicted in Figure 5.

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF GM AGRICULTURE

The New York Times reported that the initial drought-tolerant maize seed was to be offered royalty-free by Monsanto as an act of good will however the seed company administering the trials, African Agricultural Technology Foundation, has said this is only for an introductory period. Moreover, royalty-free seeds likely do not include the pesticides and herbicides that must be used in conjunction with the GM seed. There is no indication that these necessary inputs will be royalty-free and even so, they will not always be donated.

Poor Ugandan farmers survive by saving seeds and use traditional fertilizers and pesticides that come at little or no cost. Becoming dependent on the United States for agricultural inputs involves considerable risk. According to Mr. Melchett, with chemical and artificial inputs becoming more and more expensive, the last thing that farmers in developing countries need is to become hooked on costly seeds and inputs. These inputs will likely rise in price over the next several years as petroleum, a necessary GM fertilizer ingredient, becomes less abundant. Overall, the royalty-free seeds may come with substantial costs for farmers down the road.

Another consequence of planting GM corn is that it is less valuable on the global market; this trend is only growing worse as more people become aware of the uncertain health effects of GM food. For instance, many European countries now require labeling for transgenic crops due to the health conscious movement. Fussy consumers are more common in the EU although the number of customers concerned about GM products is growing in the United States. Consumers from the EU comprise the largest export market for Uganda. If the gene pool of Uganda's staple crop becomes compromised through cross-pollination, the economic losses for small farmers will be immense.

Much of Uganda's food aid is provided by USAID in the form of corn. In the United States where commercial regulations for GM crops are rather loose, GM corn is grown widely and cheaply in the Midwest thanks to heavy subsidization from the government. Genetically modified corn kernels are supposed to be sterile but occasionally they will "volunteer" and cross with varieties that have been selected by farmers over many years. It is precisely this economic risk of contamination that motivated Zambia's president, Levy Mwanawasa, to refuse aid shipments of corn grown in the United States. (6)

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

Uganda also faces a population growing at 3.3% per annum. According to the Population Reference Bureau the population in Uganda will reach 130 million by the year 2050. The increase, however, is not equally distributed across the country. Cities and urban regions are growing at a much more rapid rate as citizens seek economic opportunity which villages fail to provide. The story in Uganda around the year 2050 will be one of more mouths to feed and less agricultural productivity---an irreconcilable disparity. Climate change will dramatically lower yields of staple crops and GMO's will further exacerbate this problem as noted above.

One problem that will emerge as a result of rising population density in Uganda will be the increasing demand for energy in the areas surrounding large cities like Kampala, the capitol city. Since most Ugandans still rely on timber for fuel and cooking, the rainforests that lie within a 20-30 mile radius of major hubs will be heavily stress and depleted. We have already seen that farmers may be short on land after GMO crops are introduced and they are forced to abandon their previous plots once the soil is no longer fertile. Forests will also be a commodity for urban dwellers who rely on timber products for energy. These factors taken together will cause more frequent and intense droughts given that the rainforests play a crucial role in the development of precipitation; that is, rainforests withhold moisture until hot weather evaporates enough water to produce clouds. Population growth and urbanization combined with the energy demands of a growing urban populace will further degrade forests which in turn make food and water, both necessary resources, scarce.

Figure 3, Convergence of Food, Water and Energy Scarcity as a Result of Climate Change, 2030

Source: Beddington, J. (2009) as cited in Conway, G. Waage, J.& Delaney, S. 2010 Science and Innovation for Development. London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, p. 361.

CONFLICT PROCESS

Uganda is heading towards a massive buy-in to GMO technology countrywide focusing primarily on cereal crops (corn). Soon after the transition has been widely adopted, Monsanto will pull the royalty-free introductory rate once farmers are hooked. Farmers will go into debt to purchase GMO seed and products since it is the only thing that will grow on their land after it has been desecrated by monoculture in combination with heavy pesticide and herbicide applications. When individual debt builds, farmers will have no choice but to clear entire swaths of virgin forest to grow conventional maize once again to recover their livelihoods.

Note: The map on the left represents rainfall changes from December to February. The map on the right refers to the same indicators from June through August. Predictions are a combination of climate models; dotted areas indicate 90% agreement of various methods, locations where 66% or less of models agree are in white.
Source: Beddington, J. (2009) as cited in Conway, G. Waage, J.& Delaney, S. 2010 Science and Innovation for Development. London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, p. 279.

Forests serve the important ecological function of holding moisture that is produced either by condensation from flora or by precipitation. Rainforests create clouds and therefore weather patterns that bring rain. Not only is this rain crucial for farmers (for whom the majority is without irrigation) but also for the broader population who relies on the crops that are grown domestically to survive as well as the drinking water supply which is rain-fed.

The impetus for introducing GM crops is augmenting food security for Ugandans and it will likely have this outcome in the near term. However, becoming dependent on expensive and oil-dependent inputs from the bioengineering sector in the United States will likely exacerbate deforestation, drought, and as an indirect consequence, food shortages in the long term. Scarcity of basic resources will become the basis for new conflicts in Uganda and will prolong and intensify conflicts that are already ongoing.(7)

3. Duration

Like most civil conflicts that Uganda has witnessed, the supply induced violence we expect from resource scarcity will likely be protracted. The conflict begins as a series of isolated skirmishes in which food and water are at stake. The lines of conflict will be based on class or between the "have's" and "the have not's". Wealthy Ugandans will be able to purchase food through trade and will have put infrastructure in place to inoculate themselves from drought. Those who aren't as lucky will seek to overcome the resource hording of the rich through violent means. Others will flee to the bush for sustenance, relying on whatever they can find and eventually settling in locations where food and water are more readily available. The migration of climate refugees will put stresses on previously small communities. If the refugees seek to establish themselves on the land, there may be some clashes between the newcomers and everyone else. Although the conflicts will be disparate at first, at some point Ugandans will mobilize along some pre-existing social division (e.g. ethnicity; religion; class; or urban/rural) in a civil war of broader scope. Conflict will worsen the resource deficiency problem by uprooting farmers who previously grew food.

4. Location

Conflict will begin in the regions surrounding urban areas but over time the conflict will spread throughout the country and possibly throughout the region.

5. Actors

Non-sovereign Actors: Leftover rebel groups, political opposition groups, urban poor, ethnic factions, disenfranchised farmers

II. Environment Aspects

6. Type of Environmental Problem

7. Type of Habitat

8. Act and Harm Sites:

(a) small villages, hydro-power sites, mineral extraction sites, former rainforests

III. Conflict Aspects

9. Type of Conflict

Primarily a civil conflict although if GM crops are seen (perception does not equal reality) as the primary cause for tribulations in Uganda, some may seek revenge on America through terrorism. History also tells us that East African conflicts tend to transcend borders very easily and conflicts which begin in Uganda could subsume the entire region.

10. Level of Conflict

11. Fatality Level of Dispute (military and civilian fatalities)

IV. Environment and Conflict Overlap

12. Environment-Conflict Link and Dynamics:

The causal diagram above (Figure 5) depict the sequence and feedback possibilities for conflict. Climate change causes periods of flooding and drought that are incompatible with conventional crops. As a result of declining yields the Ugandan government approves GM maize and it is planted royalty-free by small farmers. After several years of monoculture and heavy pesticide use the soil is ruined and GM inputs have become too expensive for small farmers. Then farmers decide to return to conventional crops and can't grow them where they previously had. Farmers clear forest to plant traditional cereal crops and intensify droughts because of the role that rainforests play in the regional climate. This sequence sets up a vicious feedback loop where farmer debt rises, forests are cleared, and yields decrease exponentially.

Since Ugandans rely on domestic corn production for their sustenance, declining yields lead to malnutrition and starvation. Ugandans who are desperate begin to migrate in search of areas where farming is possible and rain is more frequent. They may be unwelcome, in which case conflicts occur.

The alternative to violence is collaboration whereby communities work together to create sustainable resources that can be properly managed in a collective setting. Aspects of sustainable agriculture could become invaluable should there be massive crop failure. Sustainable farming techniques include rainwater collection and cultivation methods that keep nutrients in the soil. These practices emphasis the long-term productivity and resiliency over the short term potential to maximize profits (Figure 6). Even without the introduction of GMO's, Africa is facing soil quality problems and will need to adopt a different approach to producing food crops.

Figure 6, Sustainable Agriculture Reduces Trade-off's Associated with "Modern Agriculture"

Source: Conway, G. Waage, J.& Delaney, S. 2010 Science and Innovation for Development. London: UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, p.131.

The effects of migration are multiplied by its feedback on the whole system. Since farmers flee conflict zones, or farming is simply too dangerous in certain areas, the overall food supply is threatened. When individuals can't find food in their area they will be forced to migrate again and the same process begins again.

Most crucial to understanding the problems that will arise from genetically engineered corn is the fact that once it is planted on a given piece of land, the plot is spoiled. It is very difficult to plant conventional crops on land where GM maize was growing due to heavy pesticide application and the development of superweeds. Moreover, the land is no longer fertile after years of monoculture.

13. Level of Strategic Interest

14. Outcome of Dispute:

There need not be winners and losers from the conflict in Uganda. If the stresses of food and water scarcity cause innovation and collaboration instead of resource hoarding and land grabbing a wider civil war could be abated. However, what begins as a skirmish or two can quickly cause fear across the country and then people begin "picking sides" to protect themselves. Once loyalties have been established the outcome of the dispute can only be measured in who secures land to grow food and water. These tangible benefits of victory may motivate a civil war of magnitude.

V. Related Information and Sources

15. Related ICE and TED Cases

16. Relevant Websites and Literature

(1) Migiro, Katy, "GM Maize Trials to Begin in Uganda" New Vision 15 October 2010,
< http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/10/10/735386> return to text

(2) Genetically modified seeds hold U.S. patents so saving seeds illegally prolongs the leasing of the product. return to text

(3) The decision to experiment with GM crops on a given piece of land is highly consequential given the toll that heavy pesticide and herbicide use have on future attempts at "conventional" agriculture. Traditional methods that rely on organic fertilizer instead of petro-chemicals and Round-up keep more key nutrients in the soil which are vital to growing ordinary crops. return to text

(4) Most NGO's who are pushing Monsanto corn in Uganda and elsewhere on the continent have as their over-simplistic goal to "feed Africa". This blind faith in bioengineering as a solution to hunger in Africa emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of where the problem originated from. The situation in Uganda is very complex. Any solution to hunger and malnutrition must be designed with the doctors' mantra in mind---first do no harm. Genetically modified maize will exacerbate the environmental and economic problems that Ugandans will face in the long term. Government officials who are genuinely concerned about the health of their people and environment place a great deal of faith in what they are told by American bioengineering companies and the scientific consensus they themselves have generated. return to text

(5) Joyce, Tom, "Uganda Trials GM Bananas" 6 August 2010 <http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/uganda_trials_gm_bananas>return to text

(6) "Better Dead than GM-fed"The Economist 19 September 2002. return to text

(7) Gizewski, Peter & Thomas Homer-Dixon (1998) describe a conflict of "supply-induced scarcity" in Pakistan that in many ways resembles this case. return to text

Anonymous, "Uganda: GM Cassava Ready for Field Trials" Appropriate Technology Vol. 36, No. 1, 2009: 6.

Benbrook, Charles M., "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years" BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 7: 2004.

Gizeweski, Peter & Thomas Homer-Dixon, "The Case of Pakistan" in Ecoviolence: Links among Environment, Population, and Security,Eds. Thomas Homer-Dixon and Jessica Blitt, p. 147-200, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.

Hansen, James et al., "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" Science Vol.308, 2005: 1431-1434.

Kamanga, Daniel, "East Africa Pushes GM Law" Nature Biotechnology Vol. 26, No. 11, 2008: 1209.

Lee, James, R., Climate Change and Armed Conflict: Hot and Cold Wars, New York: Routledge, 2009.

Nabanoga, Gorettie; Justine Namaalwa and Edward Ssenyonjo, "REDD and Sustainable Development-Perspective from Uganda" REDD Working Papers, 2010.

Rugadya, Margaret A. "Escalating Land Conflicts in Uganda: A Review of Evidence from Recent Studies and Surveys" International Republican Institute, 2009.

Rose, Rob, "GM Foods for Africa: Solution or Hazard?" New African; July/August 2002: 43.

Sekitoleko, Voctoria, "Resolution of Conflicts Between Agriculture and Environment Protection in Uganda" Nordic Journal of African Studies Vol. 2, No.2, 1993: 103-108.

Sharife, Khadija, "Is GM Food Safe for Africa" The New African January 2009: 9-13.

UK Collaborative on Development Sciences, Various, <http://www.ukcds.org.uk/index.php>

UN Economic Commission for Africa, "Harnessing Energy for Development" African Water Development Report, 2006.

Wafula, David and Norman Clark,"Science and Governance of Modern Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa-The Case of Uganda" Journal of International Development Vol. 17, 2005: 679-694.

I. CASE BACKGROUND

1. Abstract