Several African countries have experimented with GMOs with limited success, for example Bt cotton in Burkina Faso

The Parliament of Uganda recently passed the National Biosafety Act 2017. The law is intended to provide a legal and regulatory framework for the safe development and application of “biotechnology”, not “Biosafety”, in the country.

The advancement of modern biotechnology has been popularised as a powerful tool in alleviating poverty and enhancing food security. Uganda is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol which mandates parties to ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology.

Over the years, Uganda has been progressively promoting the adoption of genetically modified (GM) varieties. A number of confined field trials have been conducted: for example, genetically modified (GM) bananas are being tested for resistance to banana bacterial wilt, black sigatoka as well as biofortifying banana with micronutrients with iron and vitamin A.

Other crops include genetically modified (GM) cassava against cassava brown streak, genetically modified (GM) maize for tolerance in drought conditions and cotton against bollworm among, others. Proponents of biotechnology in agriculture argue that genetically modified (GM) crops can potentially improve yields and livelihoods, and transform the agriculture sector hence alleviating food shortages and facilitating economic development.

Uganda’s population is estimated to approach 40 million by 2020, with an estimated 70% below the age of 30. It is argued, therefore, that applying science, technology and innovation will solve problems of food shortages, unemployment and wealth for the growing population. Biotechnology has been presented as genetic quick fix that can solve Uganda’s food insecurity problems.

This poses a number of questions: 1) Can Biotechnology overcome problems of food access, food shortages to farmers in Uganda? 2) Can the National “Biosafety” Act regulate GMOs effectively? Answering these questions requires a focused debate on the potential benefits and risks of applying genetic engineering and genetic modification in Uganda’s agriculture sector.

For one, why was it not named National GMOs Act in line with its content? The potential benefits of genetic modification should not divert our attention from the real concerns about the risks of adopting this component of biotechnology. The introduction of GMOs in agriculture hinders farmers from saving seeds from harvest for replanting the following season.

This is because the seeds are patented. Patenting ensures that the developers of the seed recoup their time and investment in developing these varieties. Traditionally, Ugandan farmers have shared and saved seed over generations. What will happen with the commercialisation of genetically modified seeds? It will be disaster for them, for indigenous seed varieties will be contaminated, eventually lost to GM/Seed companies. GMO seeds are sufficiently expensive compared to indigenous seeds and this will affect livelihood of small scale farmers: the result will be food insecurity.

Investing in GMO seed presents a significant financial risk for many small scale farmers especially with climate change, volatility of markets, access to markets among others. Farmers will be forced to sell all or part of their harvests to cover input costs related to buying seeds – perpetually.

Secondly, the National Biosafety Act that was passed recently is still lacking with regard to biosafety. It is not about “Biosafety” as is known in scientific structures and processes, but mainly GMOs in agriculture. The bill does not take cognisance of the Precautionary Principle as enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol.

This principle basically means there should be an adequate level of protection in the use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology/genetic engineering taking into account risks to human health.

Our law does not mention this principle anywhere. Abandoning this principle is intended to reduce the liability of multinational companies with regard to the incalculable harm caused to small scale farmers, the environment, and public health.

With regard to liability and redress mechanisms for the farmers the Act is inadequate: while the law provides for the issuance of a restoration order to a person responsible for an activity that causes damage by unintentional release of GMOs, it does not specifically address by whom liability will be borne whether jointly or severally and does not attach liability to developers of GMO or product.

The Bill is also silent on compensation mechanisms for harm caused to the environment or costs of reinstatement, rehabilitation measures that have been incurred. The liability and redress section has been vaguely defined, possibly intended to protect multinational companies that will be promoting their technologies here.

I implore the President to insist that the strict liability principle should be inserted in our law so that whoever introduces GMOs shall be strictly liable for damage caused. Incorporating this principle operationalizes the precautionary principle, which is a key tenet of the Cartagena Protocol.

In regulating GMOs, elaborate risk assessment management provisions should be in place for the approval of genetically modified crops. Risk Assessment is done to determine the impacts and risks posed by GMO to the environment, health and biological diversity. Our law does not contain a specific provision on the requirement for socioeconomic assessment.

The socioeconomic assessment would include the ethical and social impact of the process to local populations concerned, traditional market and export earnings, health, ethical and moral considerations, actual and economic value of traditional species likely to be affected by the introduction of genetically modified crops, among others.

While it has been promised that regulations will be developed to incorporate issues on socioeconomic risks: this is a critical issue that should be incorporated in the law and should not be relegated to the regulations!

The promotion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been touted as a solution to the food security challenge in Uganda. However, as pointed out it presents significant challenges to small scale farmers. It should be emphasised that genetically modified seeds are not a magic wand that will restore poverty, hunger with a regime of abundance.

Several African countries have experimented with GMOs with limited success for example Bt cotton in Burkina Faso where production results from farmers cultivating GM cotton were of a lower quality compared to conventional varieties. Cotton companies decided not to supply Bt cotton seeds which ended GM cotton production in the country.

Our Act is lacking in several respects and does not safeguard farmers who, at the end of the day, are the end-users of these technologies. The government should concentrate on supporting farmers’ revival of seed saving practices. Community gene banks should be established at local levels to safeguard our indigenous seeds. We need to deal with structural issues facing the agriculture sector before commercialisation of GMOs: for example, farmers should be equipped with irrigation equipment, tractors, access to markets, access to good quality indigenous seeds and fertilisers.

It is my considered opinion that Uganda should tread carefully on GMOs: we need a strong legal and institutional framework to protect Ugandans from the myriad sociopolitical, environmental, public health, biosecurity, and socioeconomic hazards associated with GMOs.

By By Barbara Ntambirweki (Research Fellow at the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment)

Courtesy: The New Vision

As the sensitisation on biotechnology as another option for enhancing agricultural productivity gains ground among Ghanaian farmers, scientists are faced with one problem – how to immediately meet the growing demand for seeds.

In various sensitisation workshops on biotechnology-related issues that have been held recently with mixed stakeholders in many parts of the country, farmers have asked where they could get the seeds to buy. The recent farmer enquiry was at the Women in Science forum organised by the United States (U.S.) Embassy and held on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at the Centre for African Wetlands, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra.

Biotechnology is defined as the scientific process through which scientists change the genes of plants and animals by introducing into them desirable genes from other related species. The produce or products of this process are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In agriculture, biotechnologically produced seeds are said to have the ability to resist drought, diseases and pests. They also yield produce that are much more nutritionally fortified. But the process and produce of biotechnology is dismissed by opponents to the technology, as unethical and unsafe for human consumption due to perceived health risks.

Scientists and researchers involved in agricultural biotechnology say its produce are some of the safest and best food crops. This is because GMO seed production involves rigorous long term scientific processes that ascertain the authenticity of seeds produced.

Currently, the process for GMO seeds in Ghana is still at the field trial stage in nitrogen-use efficient, water use efficient and salt tolerant (NEWEST) rice; cowpea; and sweet potatoes. Once the final stages are completed, the seeds will be released to farmers.

Over 80 scientists, researchers, government representatives and farmers participated in the Accra forum, which was facilitated by African women involved in agricultural research, policy making and communication. They discussed innovations in agriculture and biotechnology in Ghana and in Sub-Saharan Africa, and agreed that biotechnology was crucial to addressing problems plaguing the agricultural sector and ensuring food security.

The U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Melinda Tabler-Stone, addressed the opening session. She expressed concern about the state of agriculture in Ghana, noting that though “agriculture remains the main driver for poverty reduction, particularly in Ghana’s three northern regions … farmers remain challenged by low productivity, poor soils, and changing rain patterns.”

Madam Tabler-Stone said over one million Ghanaians suffer food insecurity and the pressures were worsening as a result of rapid population growth. She observed that the situation, “calls for the implementation of effective and innovative solutions in Ghana’s agricultural sector.”

“Real transformation will require new approaches and efficiencies. The use of science and technology, including biotechnology, can be an invaluable tool,” Madam Tabler-Stone said. Attesting to the potential of biotechnology to enhance agricultural productivity, she stated, “We know this because agricultural biotechnology has greatly improved crop efficiency and production in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina among other nations.”

She further attested that “since the first biotechnology-derived crops were commercialized in the 1990s, they have been widely adopted in the U.S. Today, most of our corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are produced using genetically engineered varieties. These innovations have saved farmers time, reduced insecticide use, protected crops from disease, and enabled the use of less toxic herbicides. New advances in science continue to expand options for farmers, while at the same time promoting the health of consumers.”

Madam Tabler-Stone stressed that “these innovations have tremendous potential in Africa as well, and can play a role in helping to transform the agricultural sector from low productivity to a real driver of economic development and improved food security.”

She highlighted the gains that Ghana could make by adopting agricultural biotechnology. “Ghana will have an opportunity to transform itself from an importer of food into an exporter to feed itself and the region through wise cultivation of its fertile soils. Millions can be lifted out of poverty, should we persevere in advancing this vision.”

Madam Tabler-Stone commended President Akufo-Addo’s vision of agriculture as a key component of his national economic strategy for job creation through the “Planting for Food and Jobs” programme.

The DCM also bemoaned the situation in which African women scientists were woefully under-represented in positions of leadership, even though they have a critical role to play in Africa’s development.

She said the promotion of women and girls empowerment was a key foreign policy priority for the U.S. To this end, the areas of focus included, “advancing their education in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” she added.

Madam Tabler-Stone described the forum as a gathering that underscored the U.S. Embassy’s “commitment to address gender imbalances and empower young women with the knowledge to be competitive for success against their male counterparts.”

In her presentation, the Assistant Director of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NBDA) in Nigeria, Dr. Rose Gidado, underscored the need for Africa and the West African sub-regions to adopt agricultural biotechnology. She said an increasing population that must be fed; high use of chemicals to enhance yields; decreasing water for agriculture; food security risk; prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries were challenges requiring urgent attention.

Dr. Gidado, who is also the Country Coordinator for the Nigerian Chapter of the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB) in Africa, explained that these challenges have placed high demand on Africa’s agriculture and food system. She stated, “Now more than ever, there is need to grow more food with less land and less water per person, need for more nutritious and safe food, need to reduce the amount of waste and losses, and need to move up the value chain production.”

She urged Africa and the West African sub-regions to adopt agriculture biotechnology because “they are easy to cultivate, don’t require harsh chemicals, are environmentally friendly, and use less energy. Modern biotechnology provides us with tools for trait improvements in crop germplasm for increased grain yields in ways compatible to human and environment welfare.”

Dr. Gidado emphasised that it was important for African farmers and consumers of crop products, “to be given an opportunity to benefit from increased opportunities, productivity, and efficiency and perhaps costs of food by having GMO crops commercialised in African countries.”

Expressing similar views, an Associate Professor of the College of Science and Technology of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Dr. Marian Quain, said, “Sub-Saharan Africa needs substantial investment in cutting edge technologies and human resource development.”

She made a case for the continent to embrace agricultural biotechnology and said in such a situation, “farmers are using less pesticides or using less toxic ones, reducing harm to water supplies and workers’ health, and allowing the return of beneficial insects to the fields … and the ultimate aim to alleviate poverty, hunger and malnutrition in the Sub-Saharan region.”

Dr. Ouain literary walked participants through the science of biotechnology, saying that genetic engineering “allows for the transfer of a greater variety of genetic information in a more precise manner. These genes are very specific and allow the plant to precisely express the desired trait.”

On the issue of some of the concerns raised in relation to gene flow and pest resistance, she explained that these have been addressed by new techniques of genetic engineering. Dr. Quain said measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of GMO products. “Scientists call for a cautious case-by-case assessment of each product or process prior to its release in order to address legitimate safety concerns.”

She concluded on the note that biotechnology was certainly the way for Africa and the West African sub-regions to go. Dr. Ouain also admitted that “genetic engineering is an expensive process, requiring specialized expertise, and is not a panacea for all our agriculture problems,” adding, “it should be utlised when all other options have failed.”

By Ama Kudom-Agyemang, Accra