Archive for October 17th, 2007

Africa Must Create Its Own Biotechnology Agenda

Posted on 17 October 2007. Filed under: Food Security |

Maize farmer in Uganda

Building public support for genetically modified crops in sub-Saharan Africa means developing a homegrown solution to the region’s own needs.

This week representatives from African countries will gather in Johannesburg, South Africa, for Agricultural Science Week. Many will be asking how their governments can respond to the pressure from large parts of their agricultural communities to commercialise genetically modified (GM) crops on one side, and the large sectors of their voting publics against GM on the other.

At one level, the decision seems straightforward. Scientific achievements in GM plant breeding over the past two decades have produced a range of new crops that can increase farmers’ productivity while reducing their production costs — for example, by substantially lessening the needs for fertilisers and insecticides.

But at the same time, GM technology has not been around long enough for all its side effects to be understood. For critics of the technology, the worrying possibilities of what might happen were the technology to get out of control — however remote — is sufficient reason to halt development until more is known.

Put in these terms, the political challenge is familiar. A new technology needs an effective regulatory regime that allows its potential to be harnessed safely, while potential side effects are closely monitored.

Indeed, as highlighted in our regional spotlight on agricultural technology published this week, implementing such biosafety regimes is now a priority across Africa (see Agri-biotech in sub-Saharan Africa).

A groundswell of opposition

But if the challenge is familiar, why has it taken so long to put solutions into place? Partly this is because scientific uncertainty remains over what the side effects are likely to be. But, more importantly, a groundswell of opposition from vocal critics has exploited this uncertainty to place governments on the defensive, reluctant to move forward for fear of alienating voters.

Such opposition needs to be taken seriously. One response is to demonstrate that governments are adequately informed about the potential risks of GM technologies before making decisions on biosafety regulations. Here the scientific community — both individual scientists and institutions such as scientific academies — can help.

Governments must also ensure that their electorates are sufficiently informed about both the potential benefits and risks of GM technologies. Information campaigns — in which journalists have a role to play through sound reporting — will not necessarily endorse GM crops. They will, however, increase the chances that political decisions come out of scientifically-based arguments, rather than unfounded speculation.

A political agenda?

Yet as European governments have discovered, neither a pledge to evidence-based decision making, nor the organisation of campaigns promoting public understanding of biotechnology are sufficient. Both ignore the extent to which many critics have a political agenda — namely a desire to oppose not so much GM technology itself but the multinational corporations promoting it.

To this, there is no straightforward reply. The critics legitimately argue that corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta control many key GM technologies. Such corporations’ primary loyalty is to their shareholders, not their customers.

But a large proportion of work on GM crops also comes from the public sector, through international agricultural research centres, for example.

Still, this has done little to soothe the public perception — which some politicians have been quick to seize on — that commercialising GM crops in a country opens up its farmers to exploitation by foreign interests.

A homegrown industry

There is only one appropriate long-term response to this argument. African countries — like others in the developing world — must develop the scientific and technological capacity to ensure that biotechnology meets their own needs, on their own terms.

This means building programmes that address the potential of GM technology to enhance the ‘orphan crops’ often neglected by foreign corporations. Such crops, including cassava, pigeon pea and sorghum are already under development, but more support is needed, particularly in the regulatory arena.

Political leaders must acknowledge that biotechnology can become a homegrown industry in Africa — and they must be willing to commit the necessary resources. This should include fewer incentives for foreign companies to set up shop, and greater investment in scientific infrastructure and capacity building efforts including support for universities and regional research networks.

A step in this direction was taken in January when African Union leaders endorsed a 20-year ‘Freedom to Innovate’ biotechnology plan. But endorsing a plan is one thing, putting it into effect is another. Until that happens, genetic modification will continue to be seen as a Northern technology meeting predominantly Northern interests — and opposition will continue to flourish.

Source: SciDev.Net

Is Africa Being Bullied into Growing GM Crops?

Posted on 17 October 2007. Filed under: Food Security |

Food security? A boy sells his potato crop in Tanzania

Africa must not let multinational corporations and international donors dictate its biotechnology agenda, says David Fig.

Africa is rapidly becoming a focal point for multinational crop and chemical corporations clearing the way for the extended uptake of their products and technologies. In particular, African governments are facing enormous pressure to endorse and adopt genetically modified (GM) crops.

Organisations like the Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa — bankrolled by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations — are partly to blame through their heavy investment in infrastructure aimed at supporting the development and distribution of GM crops and seeds.

But the African Union (AU) itself is now also encouraging the adoption of GM technology. Working in tandem with its development wing, the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the AU’s High Level Panel on Modern Biotechnology is soon to release a Freedom to Innovate plan — the clearest expression yet of the trend to back this controversial and risky technology. And it does so uncritically, rather than taking a more rational precautionary position that would safeguard Africa’s rich biodiversity and agriculture.

The AU is also engaged in efforts to revise the carefully crafted African Model Law on Biosafety, which outlines the biosafety provisions necessary for African environmental conditions.

The revisions emanate from those seeking to make the biosafety content less stringent, placing Africa under even more pressure to conform to the needs of the gene corporations.

Saying no to the GM bandwagon

Support for GM technology, though, is by no means universal across the continent. The AU’s efforts in shaping the Freedom to Innovate plan and model law contrast with the leadership role that the Africa Group took in developing the Cartagena Protocol to ensure more stringent biosafety precautions.

Indeed, a number of African governments and civil society organisations are increasingly speaking out against the pressures from gene companies — and the foundations that back them — to adopt their technologies.

For example Angola, Sudan and Zambia have resisted pressure to accept GM food aid, while nongovernmental groups such as the African Biodiversity Network, based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, defend community and farmers’ rights to reject GM seed. At one stage Burkina Faso implemented a moratorium on the planting of GM crops.

The Freedom to Innovate document does little justice to the debate raging around Africa. Instead it seeks to institutionalise the pro-GM position of larger countries like Nigeria and South Africa for the entire continent.

Offering unbiased advice

There is no question that Africa needs technology to develop. But it must be appropriate to a country’s chosen path of development.

New technologies aimed at development must be evaluated in depth by, among others, scientists with no vested interests.

Natural scientists must assess GM technology’s likely impacts on both the environment and human and animal health. Social scientists must also examine the potential socio-economic consequences of such innovation — such as impacts on local food security, trade or indebtedness. Stakeholders, including those who safeguard traditional knowledge, could further enrich such assessment by indicating proven alternatives.

This model of technological assessment could serve Africa very well. It could enable governments to formulate appropriate policies and development priorities.

Most importantly, if a technology is found to be questionable or negative in terms of its impacts — or if there are no clear development benefits to be derived from its adoption — a precautionary mechanism must exist that can delay and carefully regulate its introduction.

The freedom to choose

The Freedom to Innovate plan tries to advocate the idea that all biotechnology benefits Africa and fails to analyse the risks attached to their adoption. While some aspects of modern biotechnology might prove useful in African agriculture, this does not mean that one aspect of this — GM crops — can increase continental food security and farmer prosperity.

GM technology forces Africa into high-input, chemical-dependent agriculture which impacts on biodiversity and creates debt burdens for small farmers.

In addition, the regulatory steps required for control of GM crops are so demanding of resources that, even when other budgetary areas relating to food security may need more pressing attention, Africa is forced to prioritise their set up.

Gene corporations, together with the scientists that work for them, have invested a lot of time, effort and money in developing GM crops. Not surprisingly, they are the ones who propound the idea that transgenic crops can rescue Africa from poverty and underdevelopment.

But Africa must not let itself be bullied into accepting a technology that has yet to prove itself as appropriate for solving the continent’s hunger problems. The AU’s role should be one of providing governments with well-reasoned technological evaluation, rather than acting as a proxy for promoting a specific industry’s commercial needs.

David Fig is an independent environmental policy analyst based in Johannesburg, and a trustee of Biowatch South Africa.