NGO groups oppose biotech-based green revolution, advocate low-input agriculture

by Chido Makunike

Genetically modified crops are increasingly being tested in several African countries. This being a relatively new technology, most of these countries have not had legal frameworks to lay out the parameters under which research and adoption (or rejection) of GM crops can be conducted, and to put in place biosafety measures. The governments and legislatures of some countries are now taking steps to put in place the necessary regulatory frameworks for biotechnology in general, and for GM crops in particular.

Kenya's Biosafety Bill has been discussed by proponents and foes of genetic modification with much acrimony since 2005. After many delays, renewed attempts to bring it before Parliament for debate are being made, reviving old controversial issues, and bringing up new ones.

A group of NGO representatives opposed to a biotechnology-based 'green revolution' met in Kitale, Kenya in August and mapped out a position on the Kenyan Biosafety Bill. The debate over the Bill in Kenya is likely to influence the course of events in several other countries in East Africa and beyond, and is therefore being watched closely. The workshop and symposium were organised by Manor House Agriculture Center, PELUM (Participatory Ecological Land Use Management) and Ecology Action "to deliberate the problems of food security in Africa." Delegates were mainly from Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.

The meeting's resolution wastes no time in spelling out its opposition to GM crops. It says it is aware that "some multinational companies and Kenyan scientists are touting GM crops as the panacea to hunger in Africa while ignoring inexpensive and less dangerous options to promote sustainable agriculture." It says the "pushing" of GM crops is being done without regard to the danger they pose to the livelihoods of farmers, including their right to seed security, among other concerns. The statement goes on to say the profit-driven companies who hold the patents to GM crops will effectively have a stranglehold on small scale African farmers.

Giving an indication of how impassioned the feelings against GM technology are in some circles, the NGOs express worry that Africa was being used as "a dumping ground for contaminated food rejected elsewhere." They do not view their differences with advocates of GMOs as merely being over contrasting methodologies to achieve the common aim of African food self-sufficiency. Instead, the NGO grouping suspects its pro-GM foes of being motivated by a much more sinister agenda: "this may be (a) deliberate attempt to destroy local food production and marketing systems," they charge.

After laying their anti-GM cards firmly on the table in their resolution's preamble, they turn their more specific attention to the Kenyan Biosafety Bill. The NGOs make it clear they are not opposed to the idea of a biosafety law per se. On the contrary, they welcome it, but see it as primarily a regulatory measure in the sense of controlling genetic engineering technology, whereas GM advocates hope for a facilitating type of regulatory law.

The NGOs' problem with the Bill is that it is "not comprehensive and inclusive enough," believing it to have too many loopholes "designed to facilitate introduction of GMO through the back door, without due consultation with the Kenyan people." Allusion is made to a media poll the group says showed that 81% of Kenyans were opposed to the introduction of GMOs.

The depth of feeling over the issue is illustrated by how the statement makes it clear the group does not believe the Bill's alleged lack of comprehensiveness is due to oversight, or to merely wish to make it flexible enough to accommodate varied interests. Their statement suggests they believe the underlying motivations of the Bill are to make the entry of GM crops easier, and that the ultimate aim of that is quite deliberately malicious.

The NGOs also mention that the Bill seems to concentrate on regulation of genetic modification to the exclusion of "non controversial" biotechnologies, such as tissue culture. They recommend that it be taken "back to the people" for wider public consultation, particularly with a view to putting stronger measures against genetic engineering, including tougher, more clearly spelled out punishments in cases of GMO-caused liability. They also urge mandatory labeling of GM foods in order to make it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing choices.

Having strongly spelled out their opposition to genetic engineering, the group then lays out its vision of what it calls "a truly African green revolution." The wording seems to be a subtle reminder of the oft-repeated charge that the "biotech African green revolution" is mainly driven by Western corporates seeking to expand and exploit captive African markets for their products.

The NGOs' "true green revolution" would consist of various low-input methodologies going under the general heading of sustainable agriculture. They urge policies more favourable to small scale farmers, and farming development that is more respectful of accumulated indigenous knowledge.

Whatever one thinks of the veracity or otherwise of the group's claims, their strongly-worded statement does make it crystal clear how wide and deep are the differences between proponents and foes of a green revolution approach to getting Africa to feed itself.

African Agriculture