BIOTECHNOLOGY - The Food Solution

The role of agricultural biotechnology in hunger and poverty alleviation for developing countries

Top of the agenda for world leaders today is the alleviation of poverty and hunger, with the goal to cut poverty 50% by 2015. However, as Prof. Diran Makinde, from the School of Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry of the University of Venda in South Africa, pointed out in his presentation to Biovision, ten years after the 1996 World Food Summit, which promised to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by 2015, there are more hungry people in 2006 than there were in 1996. Prof. Makinde called for new approaches to ensure sustainable food production in developing countries; especially in Africa because the majority of least developed countries are in Africa.

Biovision heard that the estimated overall global economic benefit of GM crops from, amounted to $27 billion, and that 90% of the farmers benefiting from this are resource-poor, small-scale farmers. GM crops have directly contributed to the alleviation of poverty for some 7.7 million farmers.

Makinde referred to a study carried out in South Africa in 2002 in which Bt maize and Bt cotton were compared to non-Bt crop varieties and the Bt varieties, in both cases, were found to produce a higher yield and generate more profits. Two farmers using the technology in South Africa further substantiated these findings, Mr. Motlatsi Musi, a small-scale farmer in Olifantsvlei, South Africa said “I plant Bt maize because it has increased my yield and my income. I earn R3000.00 [$430.00] more from a Bt crop than from a non-Bt crop”. Ms. Thandiwe Myeni, a small-scale farmer from Makhatini Flats, South Africa has been planting Bt cotton since 1999 and said “I get more than double yield per hectare from my Bt cotton than from my non-Bt cotton and I am also saving on pesticides by spraying only twice before harvest for Bt cotton, but weekly on my non-Bt cotton”..

GM crops are so useful to farmers because they can be engineered to be resistant to diseases and pests and to have increases nutritional value, ‘Golden Rice’, rice enriched with vitamin A, is an example of this. Most importantly though, is the development and commercialisation of drought-tolerant crops, Makinde said drought-tolerant maize has just been approved to undergo field trials in South Africa and in the next 2 to 3 years drought resistant wheat could be ready for commercialisation in Egypt. The list of benefits doesn’t end there, GM crops are also beneficial to the environment, reducing pesticide use for the period 1996 to 2004 by an estimated 172 500 MT, and advances in biotechnology are making it possible to genetically enhance plants to produce pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

Makinde questioned the EU’s stance on GM crops asking why, in light of all the aforementioned benefits, they have adopted a ‘go-slow’ approach? Present EU policies and perceptions make R&D, product development and commercialisation in agricultural biotechnology difficult, especially in developing countries that engage in agricultural trade with the EU. European consumers generally perceive GM foods to be ‘contaminated’ and therefore developing countries that are dependent on the markets in Europe do not wish to grow them and are losing out on vast socio-economic benefits. There are also issues regarding the strict traceability requirements specified in the EU regulations, which most developing countries will find difficult and costly to implement and are unlikely to measure up to.

Makinde concluded in his Biovision presentation by noting that although EU policy has been developed to protect European consumers and the environment from potential dangers, after a decade of use, there have been no cases of GM crops being harmful to human health or the environment. Therefore, there is a considerable imbalance between the hypothetical benefits of non-adoption afforded by the EU policy for its own citizens, and the real and substantial benefits that could be afforded to developing countries. The EU has not taken into account the negative effect that its policies and attitudes are likely to have on those working in the agricultural sector in developing countries.

AfricaBio is a non-political, non-profit biotechnology association for the safe, ethical and responsible research, development and application of biotechnology and its products. The Association also serves as a forum for informed dialogue on biotechnological issues in Africa.

'Green Revolution' Comes Under Fire Again

In the absence of a co-ordinated approach, the push for a Green Revolution in Africa will not benefit millions of farmers but will instead severely affect their resiliency even as it realises a boom for big-bucks biotech corporates, a new report says.

"Despite assertions to the contrary, there is a real danger that the Green Revolution will turn into a corporate biotech boom and the destruction of rural resiliency - and diversity - in Africa," says Green Revolution 2.0 for Africa? This time the '"silver bullet' has a gun."

Prepared by the Canada-based Erosion Technology and Concentration Group - a respected research and conservation organisation - the report predicts that the mistakes made during the first Green Revolution will be repeated in the second one.

It criticises the introduction of "simplistic" strategies and policies that are not suited to the continent. "The last Green Revolution imposed 'big-box' science institutions and a simplistic 'one-size-fits-all' plant breeding strategy that had little relevance for Africa."

It says that the major undoing is that "green revolutionaries" in the first one "didn't talk with farmers' organisations and dismissed farmers' knowledge as irrelevant."

Since the late 1990s, Africa has received attention from so many quarters, all claiming to be committed to its development. What have been conspicuously missing are declarations on what is in for those pushing the "revolution" agenda (Western governments, big agribusiness and private foundations).

The report questions the difference between the approach adopted during the first Green Revolution and the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (Agra) and other initiatives adopted by those driving the second one.

If it is cash, the first green revolution had lots of it. For instance, the report says that between 1971 and 2000, Africa received between $7.9 billion and $10 billion in terms of public research and development funding.

The report cites five major initiatives to jump-start the Green Revolution on the continent this time around. Starting with Agra, it tabulates the cash pumped into the initiative by both Bill & Melinda Gates and the Rockefeller Foundations, which have invested $100 million and $50 million, respectively.

But even with such funds, Agra is yet to receive widespread acceptance on the continent. The report says that besides the 70 civil society groups on the continent who came together to condemn the initiative at the World Social Forum held in Kenya in January 2007, the Mali-based Nyeleni Foundation rejected Agra altogether.

The problem, it seems, is the company that Agra keeps. "When Agra hired two key players formerly connected to Monsanto's biotech division, it further guaranteed anger from the entire anti-globalisation movement," adding that the alliance with Monsanto entrenches suspicions that it will ultimately introduce genetically modified organisms to unsuspecting African farmers.

Bill Gate's fondness for all things technological reinforces this suspicion. However, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations have denied this claim.

Besides Agra, the G8, in 2003, pledged to finance the construction of four centres of excellence to advance agricultural sciences in Africa.

These included Canada's $30 million commitment to the construction of the Biosciences Centre for Eastern and Central Africa in Nairobi and the French pledge to fund a bioinformatics centre in Senegal. On their part, the UK and the US had agreed to set up similar labs in South Africa and Egypt, respectively.

Other Green Revolution initiatives include Syngenta Foundation's partnership with the Kenya government to set up a $12 million biosafety greenhouse at the headquarters of the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and Google Foundation's pledge to offer Tanzania $300 million as development funds during last year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

There is also the Jeffrey Sachs-led Millennium Villages initiative that has been assisting 12 villages in 10 African countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals through health, education, community infrastructure and agricultural development and marketing.

But, says the report, lying at the heart of the initiatives is a silent merger between business agendas pushed by the private sector and what Western governments want to achieve in Africa.

"It is also indicative of a growing trend toward privatisation of foreign aid, and the fusing of the private sector with governments. These days, where Bill Gates goes, so goes government," it says.

In addition, big private companies have been gaining increasing influence over such publicly funded international research bodies as the 15 centres that operate under the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).