Category: News Feeds

The artist Prince, with his eyes sad and gaze unaverted, peers out from the confines of a stark and moving photograph, inviting the viewer to commiserate, to share his pain. This 1981 work, created by Lynn Goldsmith, captured Prince at his most compelling and is now at the center of a lawsuit between Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation. Had Prince knew the distress this photograph would cause another artist decades after its taking, his countenance would have been even more dour.

In 1984, Vanity Fair licensed the photograph from Goldsmith for use as “source art” to be adapted by Andy Warhol as part of one of his signature derivatives. This derivative ran in Vanity Fair’s November issue and included a credit to Goldsmith for the “source art” used by Warhol.

Warhol also used the Goldsmith photograph as “source art” for a series of silk screens and other pieces, most of which were sold off for exorbitant sums. When Prince passed in 2016, Vanity Fair republished the Goldsmith/Warhol work online. This republication was so successful that Vanity Fair used the work as the cover image for a new publication it created and sold commemorating Prince’s life. In this new publication, Goldsmith’s credit was removed from the work. And Vanity Fair paid a license fee only to the Andy Warhol Foundation (which by that time controlled Warhol’s copyrights).

When she caught wind of the above, Goldsmith contacted the AWF and noted that the new publication incorporates both her and Warhol’s creative material and that both authors had previously been credited and compensated. This had been acknowledged expressly in the Vanity Fair article and did not seem to be a disputed issue. Yet, she was rebuffed and then sued by the AWF.

The AWF sought declaratory relief in the form of a court order finding the licensing and exploitation without consent of Goldsmith’s material to be “fair use” and thus not infringement.

As readers of this column know, this writer is no fan of the amorphous and raggedly applied “fair use” doctrine, which has, over the years, transitioned from focusing on the commercial impact of the disputed use to whether that use is “transformative.” And, along the way, it has swallowed up the once exclusive right of an artist to create derivative works from her material.

This case illustrates why that transition is so problematic. The now all-important “transformative” analysis in Goldsmith’s case ventured into the mire of the metaphysical, an always dicey undertaking. The court homed in on the fact that Goldsmith’s photograph illustrates that Prince is “not a comfortable person” and is instead a “vulnerable human being.” The court then notes “in contrast,” that Warhol’s work features a “flatter” depiction that “transforms” Prince “from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure.” Through this flattening, the court concludes that the “humanity” was removed from Goldsmith’s photograph and the work transformed in the process.

Now, the above may be true, and Judge Koeltl, who wrote this decision, is a very sharp and astute jurist with a firm grasp on copyright principles, but I cannot make heads or tails out of what this passage means or how the “removal of humanity” fits within the fair use factors codified at Section 107 of the Copyright Act. The “fair use” test has now become so bloated and convoluted that nobody can find their way out.

Surely, if you trace a photograph on paper it is going to look flatter. And the bit about how the flattening “transforms” Prince from vulnerable to iconic does little to distract from the fact that this was a simple embellished copy. The true crux of the court’s analysis is revealed as almost an aside at the end of the “transformative” analysis, when the court states that the work basically looks like (or is “recognizable” as) a Warhol so should be protected as a Warhol.

Yet, the fact that a work is “recognizable” as coming from one artist is irrelevant to whether the use is a “fair use,” at least from a statutory standpoint. Indeed, when an artist of outsized fame like Warhol is involved in a “fair use” review, the process is further distorted as courts tend to look beyond the four corners of the artwork at issue to consider the fame of the artist. This, too, is not contemplated by the statute.

The Goldsmith “fair use” analysis got so muddled that the court even trotted out Justice Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” obscenity test, which is certainly of no assistance to artists and not the direction the “fair use” test should be heading. In the end, the court found that the work looks like a Warhol and should thus be protected by fair use. This ruling would seem to indicate that a famous artist with a known aesthetic can more easily claim fair use than a lesser-known artist, which is also not within the spirit of the Copyright Act.

This decision is also another nail in the coffin of one of the statutorily guaranteed exclusive rights that Congress granted to authors under the Copyright Act in an effort to incentivize the creation of artistic works. R.I.P, we can now mutter, at least in the Second Circuit, to the exclusive right to create derivative works.

17 USC 106(2) of the Copyright Act still provides an author with the “exclusive right” to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work[.]” And a “derivative” is still defined as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works,” such as those that “recast, transformed, or adapted” the prior work. Indeed, a “work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship,” is still an archetypal “derivative work.”

But, this exclusive right was jettisoned here despite the fact that Warhol’s Prince works are certainly an “elaboration on” or “modification of” Goldsmith’s photograph. Indeed, as the Copyright Act’s legislative history makes clear, the infringing work will “incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form.” That is exactly what Warhol’s Prince work does — incorporates a portion (and a large one at that) of Goldsmith’s work. Yet, the AWF has been adjudged free to exploit and monetize Warhol’s elaboration on Goldsmith’s work without any compensation whatsoever to Goldsmith.

An illuminating way to look at the equities here is to imagine Goldsmith and Warhol in the same studio back in the 1980s, with Goldsmith creating the photograph and then handing it to Warhol to trace and flatten and color. Had that happened, it could not be disputed that the work was a joint work and each artist would thus receive 50 percent of any profits from the work (or contracted for a different split of the profits). But, because Warhol simply appropriated the work without collaborating with Goldsmith, he (or his foundation, rather) may exploit and monetize the derivative without any compensation to Goldsmith. This does not seem to further the purpose of the Copyright Act.

While the AWF should be able to profit from the marketing and sale of Warhol’s Prince works, which are undoubtedly alluring in their own right, Goldsmith, as the creator of the source for those works, should not be left out in the cold. As a staunch advocate for artists’ rights, Prince is likely to be rolling over in his beret given this decision, which will hopefully be challenged on appeal.

Scott Alan Burroughs, Esq. practices with Doniger / Burroughs, an art law firm based in Venice, California. He represents artists and content creators of all stripes and writes and speaks regularly on copyright issues. He can be reached at scott@copyrightLA.com, and you can follow his law firm on Instagram: @veniceartlaw.

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta showed up at his press conference today adamant that he wasn’t holding this debacle of an event to send any signals to the White House. He then proceeded to offer us an hour of him trying to send signals to the White House in a desperate bid to hold onto his own job amid heightened scrutiny of that time that he let Jeffrey Epstein get a sweetheart deal before sealing all the records and cutting Epstein’s victims out of the whole process.

If this was his pitch, expect to see him gone within the week.

A lot can happen of course. Acosta might be able to convince his boss that he needs to stay to “own the libs” or something, but based solely on that press conference Acosta tried and miserably failed to connect with Trump.

Trump, who destroyed Jeb Bush’s air of inevitability by branding him “low energy” couldn’t have appreciated Acosta’s measured, meandering effort to heap responsibility for Epstein’s ludicrous plea deal on everyone but himself. He did, however, take off his “smart person” glasses right off the bat in a clumsy attempt to look like he was “getting tough,” so there was that. What Trump wanted to see was Brett Kavanaugh throwing a sneering temper tantrum and what he got was a series of weasely “well, actually…” statements thrown together.

Over the course of the hour, we heard alternatively that Epstein’s deal was the fault of Florida state prosecutors, or maybe the judge, or his superiors at main Justice, or the career prosecutor. One America News, an organization that astoundingly gets press credentials to events like this, even tried to pin all the blame on Robert Mueller. But it was never Acosta’s fault. Never ever.

According to Acosta it was definitely the fault of Epstein’s victims, who he repeatedly blamed for “not coming forward” even though many have come forward and Acosta knows full well that his office strung those victims along making what a federal judge has branded “material omissions” in the process. Acosta tried to argue that a culture of victim shaming kept him from building a case based on victim testimony. And then he proceeded to victim shame them in real time for allegedly “not being loud enough.”

Acosta, whose current office oversees sex trafficking efforts and has affirmatively tried to slash those by upwards of 80 percent, shockingly argued that his former office — you know, the Department of Justice — couldn’t possibly have brought Epstein to trial based on all that evidence they were putting under seal because, golly, what if they were to lose? That’s why this had to be swept under the rug with a 13-month prison sentence that let Epstein walk free every day for 12 hours, because there was a chance the government might lose. Left somewhat unresolved at the presser was how this fear of failure jived with the decision to immunize Epstein’s co-conspirators. Apparently, that was an effort to get the goods on Epstein… but then they didn’t get enough evidence? So, why did they immunize these people again? It’s all so confusing.

To hear Acosta tell it, the U.S. federal government are a bunch of hapless losers who never can win the big one instead of an entity wielding awesome prosecutorial power and securing convictions over 90 percent of the time. In the reality-based timeline that the rest of us live in, the only barrier to Epstein’s conviction in 2008 was a lack of will.

Specifically Acosta’s lack of will.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Oh my, the Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School just brings a nearly unending stream of amusement to us here at Above the Law. Whether they’re claiming they’re the number two law school in the nation (don’t worry, we aren’t living in the upside down — it was Cooley’s own ranking that put Cooley at #2 with a methodology we declared “intellectually insulting”), sponsoring a baseball stadium, or fighting with the ABA over whether they should be accredited (which they wanted to keep quiet), the law school is known for bringing the lolz. And whaddya know? They’re at it again.

A tipster sent us an interesting bit of Cooley Law School sponsored content that makes the pretty… interesting claim that there just aren’t enough lawyers:

If that doesn’t seem like it comports with the realities of the legal profession as it exists in 2019, well, you’re onto something. The truth is something we’ve documented repeatedly in the past — there now are more law school applicants than at any point since the recession. Within legal academia, there’s been a sort of a prevailing wisdom that the country’s slip towards fascism under Donald Trump has encouraged more people to become educated about the law, in a phenomenon (one that’s even been skewered by The Onion) known as the “Trump Bump.” And it’s something that’s been going on for several application cycles at this point. But Cooley is out there posting spon con on July 8th, 2019, as if it’s 2010 and the recession (complete with law firm layoffs) caused by the mortgage-backed securities disaster made laying out money for law school a bad bet.

Of course a law school like Cooley has a vested interest in trying to convince unsuspecting applicants that the jobs will be there, ripe for the plucking when they graduate. But the truth is, for the class of 2018, only 29.7 percent of Cooley grads have long-term, full-time legal jobs, compared with the national average of 68.3 percent. With even more people going to law school in 2019, and without a significant increase in the amount of legal jobs, the situation is bound to only get worse for those who fall for Cooley’s outdated puff piece.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Infertility is an incredibly difficult road. And IVF is no picnic. It involves spending thousands of dollars, countless shots and medications, a deeply emotional rollercoaster, and at the end, the hopeful parent or parents-to-be are holding their breath that the odds will be in their favor and their dream of a child will be fulfilled.

A New York couple — known as A.P. and Y.Z in their recently filed federal suit in the Eastern District of New York — have one of the most painful and heart-wrenching stories I’ve heard yet. The couple, like many, were unable to conceive naturally, and suffered failed IUI fertility treatments. So they looked for other solutions. The plaintiffs found the website and other promotional materials of CHA Fertility Center Los Angeles, and they were persuaded to sign up for treatment. CHA claims to be “known as the ‘mecca of reproductive medicine’ with world-class treatments for infertility” and states that they “ensure each [patient] receives the most appropriate and advanced treatment necessary.” Sounds like CHA takes a lot of pride in their work, right?  Hold on.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs traveled to California to undergo fertility treatment with CHA Fertility. Embryos were formed from the plaintiffs’ eggs and sperm. After genetic testing was completed, Plaintiffs received the good news that they had five normal embryos — four female, and one male. I promise there won’t be much math in the rest of the column, but the genders of the embryos does matter.  The couple went through one failed transfer. On the second transfer, they opted to transfer two female embryos to Plaintiff A.P. The plaintiffs were ecstatic to learn soon after that the transfer worked and they were carrying twins. But that’s actually where the nightmare began.

As the pregnancy progressed, A.P. went in for regular obstetrical care, including the ultrasound where doctors can tell you the sex of the baby. The obstetrician reported that based on the ultrasound, both babies were … boys. Naturally, plaintiffs were confused. They only had one male embryo, and it had not, to their understanding, been transferred. Plaintiffs called CHA Fertility. The clinic reassured them that ultrasound tests were not always accurate. And in fact, the doctor explained that his own wife had been told based on a sonogram that they were having a boy, but in fact had a girl. The doctor assured plaintiffs that “they were having girls and nothing was wrong.” Oh. OK. Sorry to bother you, doctor.

But despite the doctor’s own personal experience, he was quite wrong about the ultrasound, which had been read accurately. So when A.P. gave birth at the end of March 2019, plaintiffs were shocked that their babies were in fact both boys. It gets worse though. Neither of the babies appeared to be the same race as the plaintiffs. Representatives of CHA Fertility flew out to New York to conduct genetic testing of the babies. Sure enough, neither of the babies were genetically related to the plaintiffs. Instead, they were related to other patients of CHA. To make matters even worse, the twins weren’t even genetically related to each other! The “testing revealed that Baby A was genetically matched to Couple A, and Baby B was genetically matched to Couple B.” Wow. How does that even happen? That’s not just two families’ embryos being switched, that’s three families have mixed-up embryos in one transfer. It’s almost impressively incompetent.

The complaint explains that as a result of the DNA tests, “Plaintiffs were required to relinquish custody of Baby A and Baby B, thus suffering the loss of two children.” That must have been traumatic. I am traumatized just thinking about those moments in the hospital. To make matters worse, the clinic won’t say where the plaintiffs’ own embryos are!

A.P. essentially unknowingly and unwillingly acted as a gestational surrogate for two other families. So what is the legal theory for the plaintiffs to recover? All of them, you may say. Actually, plaintiffs list 16 counts, including: medical malpractice, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless and wanton misconduct, battery, and multiple breaches of duty. Honestly, it’s amazing that CHA didn’t offer plaintiffs millions of dollars in recompense before they filed their complaint, just to avoid what may be company-ending bad publicity.

In any event, if the allegations are true, and the world is a just place, plaintiffs no doubt should be entitled to a substantial recovery. Unfortunately, the law continues to be ill-fitted to address reproductive negligence claims and their unique aspects. In the meantime, we await the verdict as well as the premier of the horror movie based on these events.

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

We fail to see how staring at a court employee for 45 minutes while tapping a pencil and making cat noises constitutes the maintenance of high standards of personal conduct or promotes the integrity of the judiciary.

— an excerpt from a judicial disciplinary opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where Len Kachinsky, who served as lawyer for Making a Murderer’s Brendan Dassey, was suspended from working as a reserve municipal judge for a three-year period (retroactive to July 2018) thanks to his incredibly strange interactions with a court manager who accused him of harassment.

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Everyone has probably heard the expression “the customer is always right” at one point of another.  In essence, the saying means that people selling goods or services should assume that the customer is always correct and do everything in their power to please their customers.  Although there are many attorneys who apply this expression to legal services, it is often true that the client is not always right.  Most clients are not lawyers, and they may not have enough experience to make informed decisions about legal matters.  As a result, clients can realize a number of benefits if lawyers do not assume that the client is always right and attorneys have the freedom to tell their clients that they are incorrect about an issue or strategy.

It is easy to understand why attorneys would take the position that the client is always right, and follow the wishes of their clients without protest.  The marketplace for legal services is extremely competitive, and attorneys are constantly fighting to find and retain clients.  No one likes being told that they are wrong, even if they don’t have expertise in a given field.  As a result, attorneys may not want to “rock the boat” with clients for fear that their clients will jump ship and search for another law firm.

I have seen attorneys at many of the firms at which I worked pursue misguided strategies because it fulfilled the wishes of clients.  Indeed, I have worked at firms in which attorneys focused on arguments that had almost no chance of success just because a client told them to make certain points.  In addition, I have seen attorneys file unnecessary motions or complete other unneeded tasks just because a client told them to follow a certain strategy.  Of course, if a tactic will not materially impact a client’s position, or put an attorney in ethical jeopardy, there is usually no problem with following a client’s advice.

However, most clients are not attorneys, and as such, they likely do not have much familiarity with legal issues.  In addition, even if clients are lawyers, they might not have experience with the legal issues that are at the heart of a matter.  Moreover, in-house attorneys who work for corporate clients might have bureaucratic or other reasons for recommending a certain strategy, even if it might impact a client’s likelihood of success.

Attorneys do their clients a huge disservice if they blindly acquiesce to the proposed tactics of a client without providing clients the benefit of the attorney’s experience.  Of course, ethics rules provide that a client has the exclusive right to decide on objectives of a given representation, and the goals of legal services should be decided by clients alone after consultation with a lawyer.  However, ethics rules usually leave the strategies used to pursue those objectives in the hands of the attorney, so long as lawyers consult their clients about proposed strategies.  As a result, attorneys should feel empowered to confront their clients when their clients favor strategies that the attorney thinks are flawed.

Over the course of my career, I have confronted clients on several occasions when I felt my clients were misguided about proposed strategies.  Of course, as the proprietor of a new law firm, I want to make my clients as happy as possible.  However, this is not at the expense of doing everything that I can to ensure that my clients have the best chance at achieving their objectives.

For instance, earlier in my career, I had a client who was adamant about not giving our adversary additional time to file their answer.  The client had an extremely bad relationship with our adversary, and the client did not want to do the adversary any favors.  In addition, the client did not trust our adversary, and thought that he would just delay the proceedings as long as possible in order to make it harder for us to reach a resolution.

I told my client that it would look bad if we didn’t give our adversary additional time to answer the complaint, and that if we ever needed an extension of our own, we might not be able to receive it if we pursued this strategy.  In addition, if we tried to settle the case before the case went into discovery, our adversary would be more willing to resolve the matter if they did not need to spend money on legal fees by filing an answer or a motion to dismiss.  Furthermore, I told my client that I did not want to practice law by refusing to extend courtesies, and that we would lose almost nothing by allowing our adversary a few more weeks to file an answer.  We ended up resolving the case on positive terms before an answer was filed, and even though I created some friction with my client, the client ended up benefiting from having a frank conversation about the pitfalls of the client’s strategy.

In the end, the legal industry is similar to a number of other fields. and lawyers oftentimes need to compete against each other for business.  As a result, many lawyers follow the strategies proposed by clients without discussing their own opinions.  Nevertheless, attorneys do clients a huge disservice if they do not confront their clients about flaws in how clients wish to proceed in a given legal matter.

Jordan Rothman is the Managing Attorney of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York litigation boutique. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.

* Remember how AG Bill Barr announced that lawyers would be getting swapped out on the census citizenship case? This federal judge has rejected the change because the DOJ “provide[d] no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel.” [New York Law Journal]

* After two hours of oral argument, judges on the Fifth Circuit seemed unsure of whether the Affordable Care Act would live to see another day. This case is likely headed to the Supreme Court no matter what, as health insurance for 20 million people protections for pre-existing conditions are in the crossfire. [POLITICO]

* Daniel Bress of Kirkland & Ellis was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit (or the “9th Circus,” as President Trump once referred to the appellate court) in a party-line vote. He’ll replace the disgraced Alex Kozinski, who resigned in 2017 amid allegations of sexual misconduct. [Washington Post]

* Chief Justice Leo Strine of the Delaware Supreme Court will be retiring at the end of October, leaving time for Governor John Carney to select a replacement for the man who shaped the law on takeovers. [Reuters]

* Jeffrey McIntyre, a partner at Husch Blackwell, left the firm after he was reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for punching a bar manager in the face and driving while intoxicated, both of which he was charged for and submitted guilty pleas. [Wisconsin State Journal; ABA Journal]

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

The United Nations in Zimbabwe convened 45 representatives of the Ministry of Information, Publicity and Broadcasting Services; United Nations Communications Group; Embassy of Sweden including 24 representatives of various media platforms, editors and senior journalists from 7 to 10 July 2019 in Masvingo.

The objective of the three-day meeting, including visits to UN supported development and humanitarian projects, was to enhance media understanding of Government and UN engagement in Zimbabwe on development and humanitarian issues and increased media coverage of development and humanitarian issues.

The workshop participants underlined the need for Government, UN, Development Partners and the Media to work together to:

• advance good governance and human rights by intensifying coverage of anticorruption cases and topics of transparency, accountability and quality of public services
• climate action to enhance disaster risk reduction to address recurrent natural disasters such as drought, floods, cyclones, outbreaks
• promote gender equality particularly by combating gender-based violence, child marriages, and teenage pregnancy.

The United Nations recognizes the critical role of the media and freedom of information in advancing development. In this regard, the three-day UN-media workshop highlighted the need for media in Zimbabwe to be capacitated to report on good governance, human rights, climate action and gender equality. It was agreed that media houses and journalists as information gatekeepers will follow up on SDGs progress in Zimbabwe, national policies and their implementation, enhancing accountability, transparency and delivery of public service.

Addressing the workshop participants, UN Resident Coordinator Mr Bishow Parajuli stressed the need to pull together to advance the inherent goodness of human values as Zimbabwe strives to turn around the socio-economic challenges, climate action, drought and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). “Engaging with the media is fundamental and partnership with the media is crucial to achieve development.  The UN remains open to dialogue with the media and to feedback on the UN’s delivery and performance.”

The role of development assistance is critical, necessary but not sufficient for the achievement of the SDGs. There is a strong need and a case for the private sector and business to play a significant role, and the media has a big role in sending positive and hopeful messages outlining a positive narrative of Zimbabwe as an investment and tourism destination.

Dr Mutambudzi, Director of Media Services in the Ministry of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services speaking on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, Mr Nick Mangwana, in his opening remarks, highlighted the importance of the partnership between the UN and government of Zimbabwe towards the development of the country. He commended development partners for their work in disaster situations particularly during the national crisis caused by Cyclone Idai.

Noting Government’s efforts, Dr. Mutambudzi said, “the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) will be replaced by three progressive Acts, which are the Freedom of Information Bill, the Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill and the Protection of Personal Information/Data Protection Bill. For the first time, Zimbabwe will also have a Media and Film Policy to guide its operations.” He also said, reviewing the country’s media laws and policies is a way to create an enabling environment for the media as it creates laws which are aligned to the Constitution that govern and help the sector to attain international best practices.

Appreciating the role of media for being at the forefront of sharing information, breaking news and being the voice of the voiceless by putting their lives in danger, Ms Angelica Broman First Secretary at the Embassy of Sweden said, “to enhance economic growth in Zimbabwe more efforts have to be put into ensuring gender equality and to eliminate gender-based violence.  The financial cost to the nation of gender-based violence is immense and should not be underestimated.” Ms Broman also emphasised the need to not confuse gender with women issues, gender alerts to equality of both men and women ensuring that they have the same rights, respect and access to resources.

To combat the effects of drought in affected communities, World Food Programme (WFP), is running a community project titled The Garden and Fishponds turning aid into sustainable solutions. Through the project the community has managed to establish a 2Ha garden, orchard, tree nurseries, indigenous poultry, pigeons, apiculture and 2 times 1000m² fishponds, which are benefiting 93 households.

“From a small community-based initiative, with the right support, the Chebvute site has grown into an example for all of Zimbabwe. This project is proof of the humanitarian-development nexus at work: present-day assistance can help families build resilience to feed, water, educate and support their communities for years to come,” said Mr. Eddie Rowe, WFP Zimbabwe Country Representative and Director.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) small irrigation programme in Stanmore B in Masvingo District is providing sustainable agriculture production in the area. The project has improved food security and household socio-economic status in the area. Beneficiary farmers have drilled boreholes for clean drinking water, paid off school fees for their dependents and others have bought vehicles using proceeds from the irrigation scheme.

Noting the successful rehabilitation of Stanmore irrigation scheme in Masvingo District with support from Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Swiss Development Cooperation and the European Union, Dr. Alian Onibon FAO Sub-Regional Coordinator for Southern Africa and Representative to Zimbabwe said, “the irrigation scheme is testimony that communities can turn around a drought prone area into an oasis and profitable irrigation venture, harvesting cash-crops and staple crops (maize and sugar beans) throughout the year, as such there is need to scale up climate smart agriculture and irrigation schemes to address the recurrent drought and effects of climate change.”

The UN, through 2016-2020 Zimbabwe United Nations Development Assistance Framework, also supports development programmes in health, education, water and sanitation, food and nutrition, gender equality, HIV and AIDS, poverty reduction and resilience building delivering USD 400 million in various development projects towards inclusive growth and sustainable development.

Post published in: Business