GES Summit PAWA254 discussion

My summary of ydays discussion. Posting here

Went for a discussion yesterday on what the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) meant for Kenya. On one hand people who attended it thought 1) It helped entrepreneurs form connections with other entrepreneurs, VC firms, role models. I must add here, that most of the delegates were from developing countries 2) The panels and discussions were Africa focused, there were sessions on agriculture etc., that were extremely helpful.

Obama and Kenyatta convened the Summit. Kenya succumbed to a bad bout of Obamamania. Because of this the media did not focus on the Summit- and the panels etc, but chose to provide the public with minute details of Obama's Airforce 1. Thus not many people know what happened at the Summit. There was thus a claim that the Summit did not benefit the ordinary person.

This was followed up by the claim that people who were selected to attend the Summit had a previous connection with the US Embassy. This was not true in my case- however I do realize that credentials such as 'Rhodes Scholar' tends to open up doors. However, given that I met small scale farmers from Sudan, Tunisia- people who couldn't possibly have such connections, I reject this argument.

The discussion then went down the following path which I thought was extremely interesting. It went as follows. The US, and surrogates of the US such as the World Bank, IMF, have provided Africa with loans, while turning the screws on African countries, forcing them to privatize- this has had woeful consequences- such as lack of public transport etc. It was argued that GES was just another insidious way for the US to peddle its mandate of 'capitalism' on poor countries. It was said that GES created the perception among the public that business had to circumvent and provide for the public, what the government would not do. This is harmful.

Now, I have a problem with this. Everything the white man does today can be construed in this light (and it usually is true). However, is this really the perception of people on the ground? Or are we saying it is, in order for it to fit the above theory. I admit, I'm biased because I attended the Summit and found it to be helpful. The narrative during the Summit was very clearly that governments need to step up. However, thanks to the poor media coverage, this obviously did not go through.

A second point raised during the debate was that Obama pledged 1billion USD for 'youth and women'. However, studies have shown that for ever $ given in foreign aid to Kenya, Kenya loses $10 in tax evasion by multinational corporations who are signed on. A third point raised, was that the GES would lead to brain drain, as entrepreneurs would be enticed to go abroad to the US to become big. Personally, I dont think point 3) is a strong point.

Now, does this mean that 1) It would be better if the money hadn't been given? 2) Kenya needs to negotiate the terms of such grants, but does Kenya have the clout to negotiate these terms given the unequal relationship with the US? I am unclear.

So has the GES created more harm than good? Has it furthered the 'selfish' ambition of a few entrepreneurs at the expense of an entire nation? I leave you to draw your conclusion

Food Sovereignty vs Food Security PAWA 254 discussion

My takeaway from the food security versus sovereignty debate

Just back from an incredible debate on 'Is food security coming at the expense of food sovereignty'!

At the outset there were issues raised about the inadequate long term testing of GMOs, the fact that the herbicide/pesticide use has increased with the advent of GMOs- and how this is detrimental to the land/ these chemicals themselves contain carcinogenic substances. However, it was also pointed out that climate change- leading to conditions such as droughts have also necessitated the need for traditional agriculture to be altered. This brought us to the point of food scarcity.

The dominant narrative today- bolstered by companies such as Monsanto is that GMOs are necessary to tackle the food shortage. However, it was pointed out, that this could be solved by better storage/the removal of middle men who hike up prices, and adequate consideration needed to be afforded to these issues.

It was acknowledged however, that we already rely on plenty of GMOs. there was no debating the fact that the real cause of worry was how these seeds were in the hands of a few companies only. 70% of farmers in Africa are small scale farmers- who will suffer if monocultures become the norm. These farmers are also unable to pay the high price for GMO seed. Compound this with fact that companies like Monsanto forbid the reuse of their seeds (in order to make a profit- they claim). The laws seem to protect the big companies as opposed to small holders.

Corrupt politicians will have no scruples in signing agreements with corporations (who by US law have the same right as persons and can thus negotiate such agreements with States- lawyers please back me up here) and allow the corporations to basically loot their countries. Someone in the debate mentioned the need for bilateral treaties to ensure that corporations met certain conditions in order to enter a country.

Note that the fact that chains such as McDonalds require one species of apples for example, is leading to the demise of several strains of apple as farmers now are forced to grow the strain that McDonalds wants. This is also leading to a dearth in biodiversity.

Compound this with the fact that food has political, personal and cultural meanings, and it is clear that capitalism has set the rules in the favour of size!
What can WE do, was then discussed. Should we boycott chains like McDonalds? Many of those present at the debate already do. However, at some level even 'boycotting' something reflects our privilege- that we are able to do so, while so many do not have this choice as they cannot even AFFORD to go to McDonalds in the first place.
How do we change the narrative- and go for more African friendly ways of ensuring food security and sovereignty? This we still have to discuss.

Energy Situation in Kenya: Discussion at iHub

Is catching the tail end of a discussion on energy in Kenya at iHub. Apparently currently to sell your surplus solar energy back to the grid, you have to sign a Power Purchase Agreement with Kenya Power Limited which is next to impossible to obtain. Hope is in the upcoming 2025 Kenya Energy Bill which has laws around net metering.
{Note Germanys net metering system charges users x for power and pays them 2x for the power they generate. Kenya has 19 times less solar power installed than Germanys 38 GW. Why is that? Awareness- people think of solar only in terms of lanterns and mobile charges not solar on a large scale. The cost of money is high here. Plus there has to big capacity building. It is interesting to see that the government is proposing nuclear power to close the gap but not focusing enough on solar (I have to check this out).}

Note this is all fairly new as a monopoloy existed before ( i dont know what the case is now. I thought it was still a monopoly) and one could only sell energy to the grid if ones system was greater than 40kW. Interestingly it was a UNDP project in the 90's that helped changed policy. UNDP tied up with another power supplier to build an 18kW hydroelectric scheme that powered a small shopping center. The result of this project was partly instrumental in shaping policy.

Another instance of policy following a project, is when the Spanish government gifted Kenya a 3.5 MW wind turbine on the top of Ngong hill. The project produced the energy it was guaranteed to produce in 1.5 years, instead of the said 2 years. This made the government interested in independent projects such as this. However, most project managers need the government to sign a 'sovereignty' clause: which states that in the event of a civil war/terrorist attack of the project, the government will reimburse the constructors. The government has been shying away from doing this. Without this, banks refuse to provide loans, and projects cannot be developed.

UNEP is currently pushing for a FiT for solar. UNEP produces more solar energy than it needs. It is now putting excess energy into the grid for free. It is pushing for the government to implement FiTs. In the new Energy Bill, this will range form 8.5cents/kWh to 20 cents/kWh (for decentralized renewables). Note the Mumias Sugar Industry actually had a geothermal(?) renewable project up and running which the government gave 6 cents/kWh. Under this new act the government is supposed to give them 12 cents/kWh. Mumias asked for this price. Instead the government slapped them with a 2 million KSh bill, for failing to comply with contractual terms. It refused to pay Mumias the 12 cents/kWh, and Mumias boycotted their original contract and is not providing the government with any energy.

For solar water heating, there is an Energy Efficiency act that requires companies to conduct energy audits.

There is a push that in the new building code there will be mandatory water harvesting and design buildings according to local microclimate as well as use local materials. The current building code doesnt all anything apart from stone. This is because the colonial master buidling codes were used.