Nigeria: Gene Modified Crops Debate Rages

... many African countries are reluctant to approve the use of GMOs.



Nigeria officially signed the Biosafety Bill into law in 2015, making it eligible to join the league of nations that are already using genetic engineering (GE), also called genetic modification (GM), to boost food production. Since then, there has been a protracted debate over the application of genetically modified crops into the food system in Nigeria. These protracted debates over their use and possible dangers have birthed two groups- Pro-GMO and Anti-GMO.

Despite the clear link between agricultural productivity and technology, there are, however, uncertainties and confusion in government responses to a wide range of agricultural, health, social, economic and environmental issues associated with the application and regulation of modern biotechnology in agricultural practice.


[..there is..] growing opposition by a coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) against the introduction of GMOs in the country.

Director of Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Mr. Nnimo Bassey, argued that use of gene drive organisms has the potential of wiping off whole species of organisms. He argued that doors will be open for all sorts of synthetic organisms to be released or experimented on in Nigeria.

President of the Nigeria Institute of Food, Science and Technology (NIFST), Dahiru Adamu, said,

“genetically modified seeds would make it impossible for our local seedlings to be productive for farmers and the nation. Once we allow genetically modified seeds to come into Nigeria to be planted by our farmers, which may mark the end of Nigeria. This is because by the time these seedlings are planted, one, two to five years, it will compare with our local seedlings and will not allow them to germinate. This will lead us to buying seeds from them and therefore, hold us to ransom, and become the determinant factor whether the country gets food or not and in turn become a big problem for the country.” .

...the Managing Director of Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), a leading health, legal and environmental organisation, Prof. Philip C. Njemanze, said, “In an environment like Nigeria where corruption prevails, the biotechnology companies could bribe officials to look the other way on crucial information on the health hazards of GMO crops.”

Njemanze said, “The rising rate of cancers, infertility, mental diseases, and autistic spectrum disorders in children in Nigeria is related to the increasing use of Monsanto Roundup pesticide – Glysophate. The pesticide when used kills weeds but spares GMO crops.”

However, pro-GMO civil society groups led by the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Consortium (NBBC) has said the development of the Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpea (PBR-Cowpea), a GMO product is a confirmation of our expertise in Nigeria to be able to provide a home grown solution to our pest and diseases problems in agriculture.

President of NBBC Celestine Aguoru argued that the modification of beans, just one crop, has brought so many benefits to the country. He said: “The benefits include reduction in the use of dangerous chemicals, protection of Nigeria’s position as the largest producer of beans.

“Reduction in the spending of Nigeria’s foreign exchange in the purchase of over 500,000 tons of beans annually from other countries. Farmers can now heave a sigh of relief from chemicals which they have to spray about 10 times for each beans season and that Nigeria is going to save a lot of foreign exchange used in the importation of chemicals,” said Aguoru.

He further said: “We are also using this platform to call on the federal government to ignore the call by the non-scientific activists to ban the GM beans because it is safe and poses no proven harm to human or animals. We urge the Federal Government to increase budgetary allocations to universities and research institutes to enable them undertake research that meets national aspirations as we have seen in this case of PBR Cowpea.

Full article...










https://www.blueprint.ng/much-ado-about-genetically-modified-food/

Benefits of grain export bans debated in Tanzania

Tanzania is one of many African countries where the availability of key grains like maize, all of them mostly rain-fed, can be very unpredictable from season to season, depending on the climate.

 When there is a shortage of these grains for one reason or another, the food security (and therefore political) implications are so pressing that governments feel forced to intervene. Governments that make a lot of noise about the necessity of other countries opening up their markets more, suddenly have no qualms about instituting measures like price controls and export bans.

A meeting held in Tanzania to discuss the pros and cons of these periodic grain export bans had a number of speakers saying they not only don't achieve the intended result (securing local supply in a time of shortage and keeping prices 'reasonable'), they cause a number of other problems as well, including inviting retaliation from trade partners. In any case, another speaker said, where rice dynamics favour farmers or traders exporting rather than selling on the local market, they will find a way to get the commodity to the more lucrative market, export ban or not.

Prediction: Particularly for maize, for the foreseeable future no amount of research, data or arguing will stop African governments interfering with maize marketing at one level or another, including banning exports (or trying to) when there shortages. ALmost all African governments panic when there is a maize shortage.     

African Agriculture

Malawi farm inputs subsidy under strain over currency devaluation, dependence on donors

Malawi has had a much-lauded farm inputs (fertilizer, seed, chemicals) subsidy scheme for its farmers for some years now. It has been extremely successful in raising the yields of several crops. Most significantly including making the country (agriculturally, economically, politically), once famine-plagued Malawi has for several years in a row now enjoy surpluses of its staple crop, maize.

But from the beginning, there were always concerns about how long the subsidy could be sustained. It took a big chunk from Malawi's annual budget and was increasingly dependent on international donors. Then there has been the perennial debate about how subsidies distort the development of free, strong markets and how they may create a culture of expectation which could be damaging to the creation of a competitive farming sector.

In the understandable euphoria of Malawi's 'bumper harvests,' all these worries were pushed aside. But recent events have forced renewed focus on the long-term viability of the farm inputs subsidy.

Hyperinflation has significantly devalued the Malawian kwacha, meaning for the same amount of the currency, the country gets much less than before in imported goods like farm inputs. Reduced national purchasing power has reduced how many of Malawi's farmers can have access to subsidized inputs.

Then Malawi's late president Bingu Mutharika had a falling out with Britain and other major donors, causing them to show who is who by slashing their support to the country's budget. This caused Mutharika's government to scale back the reach of the subsidy scheme, while also graphically showing the inherent dangers of a programme so vulnerable to the feelings of foreign governments and institutions.


Activists who are ideologically opposed to the very idea of fertilizers might feel vindicated by the subsidy programme running out of steam in Malawi. But it is also far from obvious that the various agro-ecological  alternatives can be a direct replacement for Malawi's (or any country's) present inputs-based farming in the near-enough term to address the intersecting food security, soil fertility, political and other challenges.

There will be no quick or easy answers, but at least the discussion about the need for Malawi to look beyond its government/donor-funded inputs subsidy programme seems to have begun.

African Agriculture





       

Is Zambia's price subsidy to maize farmers sustainable?

In African countries where maize is the food starch of choice, everything to do with the crop's cultivation and marketing is deeply political. Unfortunately, this utterly dull-to-eat, increasingly hard-to-grow grain of relatively low nutritional value has been allowed to control the agricultural economics of several countries because of puzzling, mythic powers as 'the staple crop.'

Zambia is just one of many African countries enthralled by maize. So much so that the government is content to pay its maize farmers a higher purchase price than it then sells the maize for locally or abroad. Among the most important parts of Africa's Maize Mafia are farmers who must be paid prices attractive enough for them to continue growing enough of the crop to cover local needs.

But a contradictory part of that same mafia are the maize consumers (i.e. voters) who will remember maize prices at election time and reward/punish the ruling party accordingly. The maize consumers want/expect maize which is 'affordable.'

The contradiction of expectations between these two main groups often means the government subdizing maize to raise farm gate prices (above 'free' market) to keep farmers happy, but also subsidizing prices to consumers (below 'free' market) to keep consumers happy!

As long as it rains well for a good crop to be achieved and the government can find the money for this costly political balancing act, everybody stays more or less happy. But this is obviously a very unsustainable balancing act, as shown by how the balancing formula causes all sorts of distortions when there is a shortage or a surplus.

Zambia has enjoyed maize surpluses for several years. But if farmgate maize prices are allowed to fall too low in response to the glut, the farmers will not grow as much the following year, causing shortages which will drive up prices for maize consumers to levels that could cause disaffection with the ruling party.

The donor nations who support Zambia in various ways have recently been pointing out the unsustainability of this state of affairs, but even they recognize it is politically very difficult to stop maize subsidies.

The real pity is that so little effort is being paid to finding ways to reduce the dietary dependence so many Africans have developed for the dull-to-eat, poorly nutritious, ever-harder to grow (increasingly unpredictable rains, tired soils) crop of maize.

African Agriculture   
   

   

Is Ethiopia repeating Zimbabwe’s colonial-era land tenure mistakes?

by Chido Makunike

Ethiopia seems to feature more than any other African country in the charges of accommodating large land deals or land ‘grabs’ (choose depending on your bias) by foreign farming investors.

There is controversy about almost every aspect of them. Are the terms of the deals not too much in favor of the investors? What are those terms exactly? Will the host countries benefit much from them, or will they mostly be another type of resource plunder? How can Africa’s mostly communal land tenure systems be made compatible with commercial land leasing and ownership systems? Does the big new role of foreigners in answering that long outstanding question not create resentment and foster resistance to these deals?

Controversial as the deals may be, is it not necessary and unavoidable that at least some communal land gives way to high-intensity commercial use of one type or another? Has this not happened everywhere else in the course of ‘development?’ In respecting traditional communal land tenure indefinitely, would governments not actually be condemning many of their most vulnerable citizens to perpetual poverty, given declining soil fertility, increasing population pressures, climate unpredictability and so on; all factors that increasingly threaten the viability of rural life?

But then again, in countries where many have little else on which to sustain themselves except subsistence farming, is removing rural communities from their lands and livelihoods, no matter how basic, to make way for commercial farming not condemning them to an even more uncertain fate in new, unfamiliar territory?

These are just a few of the questions that face nearly all African countries, even those not currently in the news for ‘land grabs.’ These are issues that long preceded the current wave of land deals. None of the range of answers is as easy or straightforward as either supporters or opponents of the current deals would suggest.

Governments, investors and many others in between have often taken very simplistic positions on the land deals that leave out many of the complicated nuances. Media and various non-government organizations with their own rigid ideological or commercial interests at stake in supporting or opposing the land deals have only added to the confusion.

In making aggressive moves to develop a commercial agriculture sector, in many ways Ethiopia is going where Zimbabwe has been.

In certain media, any mention of Zimbabwe must automatically go hand in hand with phrases such as ‘Mugabe’s land grabs’ and the country ‘went from regional farming breadbasket to basket case.’ The idea is to emphasize the recent disruption of a system of title deeds-based farmland tenure that was long taken for granted, and a sophisticated, thriving commercial farming sector that was widely admired. ‘Mugabe’s land grabs’ from white farmers from about the year 2000 changed much of this. The country experienced several years of economic decline which it only arrested a few years ago, and is still  battling to rise from.

As successful as the ‘breadbasket’ was, the considerable emotion that events in Zimbabwe elicit in a surprising number of people even far removed, means that there is little interest in going back a little in history to see the roots of the eventual dismantling of the land tenure system that gave rise to it. How did that commercial, Western-style farmland tenure system come about?

It came about in ways somewhat similar to what is being alleged the present Ethiopian government is doing in displacing rural communities to make way for foreign farm investors.

From the early 1900s, white settlers in the then Rhodesia were given by the colonial governments huge parcels of land from which Africans had been uprooted. The ‘villagization’ that the Ethiopian government is said/accused to be embarking on today sounds vaguely similar to the ‘tribal trust lands’ to which Africans were forcibly moved by colonial governments from the early days of Rhodesia.

In both cases, the main reason was to give prime land to the favored elite of the time, whether white settlers then in Rhodesia or investors in Ethiopia today. However, incidental benefits for the displaced communities were also cited as justifications for the land grabs. In Rhodesia, it was said that the concentration of once widely scattered communities into fewer, smaller areas would make it easier for the colonial government to provide them various services, such as agricultural extension, schools and so on. In Ethiopia today, relocations which critics say are forced and violent, but which the government insists are voluntary, are explained as being to better enable access to schools, clinics and other basic social services.

Few of Rhodesia’s early white settlers had any farming experience at the time of getting land which had been grabbed from Africans. Many were rewarded with land for their role in African conquest, and some as thanks from then colonial power Britain for their service in Europe’s early 20^th century civil wars.

Title deeds-based land tenure on the grabbed land replaced the traditional communal tenure system of the dispossessed Africans. It was on this grabbed land that successive colonial governments supported the new land holders to develop into the impressive commercial farming sector that powered Rhodesia’s economy, and later Zimbabwe’s.

From a distance and from outside, and for a while even in the country itself, all that appeared on the surface was the farming and economic success. Below the surface, the sense of  grievance on which these successes were built was muted as long as the Africans enjoyed some of its crumbs, as farms workers or in the many downstream industries that resulted. But it never went away. It might have appeared as ancient history and finished colonial business for the then well-established descendants of the original white settlers, but it was a quietly present and continuing ‘issue’ for many Africans. The period from the colonial land grabs of the early 1900s to independence in 1980 was short enough that there were still many people alive who had personal memory of how they were chased from family lands, their cattle expropriated; forced labor and various taxes imposed on them. These stories were passed on from generation to generation in every African family.

The sense of African grievance that continued to fester over the land issue meant that all recognized the need for some type of land reform after 1980. One reason mostly polite discussion dragged on about the issue was the difficulty of how to raise the money to compensate the white land owners for any ceding of land to Africans they might agree to. In other words, the title deeds they held on land that had been grabbed from Africans several decades before were by most people seen as inviolate.

There was no talk, or very little, of invalidating the land deeds of black-ruled Zimbabwe because the land had been grabbed from Africans several decades before. It was sort of accepted that land reform negotiations would start on the basis and from the starting point of the colonial, title-based land tenure system, not the traditional African communal system that existed before that.                    

One of the reasons that ‘Mugabe’s land grabs’ have been so controversial, even emotional for many people, including those not directly involved, is that he invoked not the colonial title deed as the basis for land ownership legitimacy, but the land ownership rights of Africans before that; the ones that were grabbed from those Africans by the colonial governments. This was a very new post-colonial precedent that worries and outrages many people for all sorts of reasons not necessary to get into for the purpose of the present discussion.

Zimbabweans of all types were proud of their relatively developed, diversified economy and the ‘breadbasket’ commercial farming sector that underpinned it. All Zimbabweans suffered from the economic crisis that followed the recent land ‘re-grabs’ that were not well thought out. But it is interesting and important to note that there wasn’t/isn’t any  significant African sentiment for those land re-grabs to be reversed. Most Zimbabweans  want the land reform process and commercial agriculture fixed, but probably very few would advocate for the status quo to go back to the system of title deeds that originate in the era of colonial land grabbing.

If the old system of title deeds-based security of tenure is deemed illegitimate on the basis that they were issued on grabbed land, how is a new system of security of tenure to be built to give people the incentive to invest in land and ‘commercial’ farming again? Once today’s communal land has become a fully tradable commodity, how do poor rural farmers gain access to land and avoid being further marginalized by the few who can afford to buy it and acquire title deeds?  Despite the increasingly apparent problems plaguing it, is Africa’s communal land tenure system really outdated and to be discarded, or does it still serve useful functions that no other system can fully do? Could the traditional communal system and a new title-based system co-exist in the same area?

There are many answers proffered, but none that are universally accepted or that address all the related historical, legal, cultural, political and economic issues easily. 

It is easy to see the mess that this presents. For example, suppose you were a white farmer with a title deed in 2000 that lost his farm to the most recent ‘land grab.‘ What about if you had not inherited the land from an early 1900s British settler ancestor, but had bought it from the son or grandson of such a settler? Is ‘Mugabe’s land grab’ not clearly, obviously illegal and unfair to such a title holder? But what about if you were an African farm laborer on that same land, whose grandfather had been the early 1900s land holder from whom the land had been grabbed by the colonial government. It was then given, with title deed, to the white settler whose progeny then eventually sold the land and its title deed to today’s white farmer of my example.

Whose ‘ownership’ and whose ‘justice’ should prevail, and why?

If the colonial land tenure system was widely seen as unjust and illegitimate, clearly it is no longer possible or desirable to go back to the pre-colonial communal system, at least not on what had become ‘commercial’ farms. The people and times have largely changed. The need for that land to remain ‘commercially’ useful is recognized by all. Having demolished the system that existed for decades for its political/historical incorrectness, how do you build a new one that is politically correct while also giving land holders the room and incentive to invest and be productive? It is very far from straightforward.

To get back to today’s Ethiopian ‘land grabs,’ what is or isn’t happening in that country is from a distance very murky. It is almost impossible to accurately gauge the objectivity of the reports of those who slam or support the new land deals.

However, part of the lesson of Zimbabwe is that particularly in mostly agrarian societies, perceived ‘land grabs’ can set up a multiplicity of new problems decades after it appears they have been accepted as irreversible. Regardless of what impressive modern edifice is built upon land that there is majority consensus was unfairly ‘grabbed,’ especially in favor of ‘outsiders,’ there for a very long time will remain the explosive potential for conflict. All it needs is some small spark to set it off. 

Leading Indian agro-investor in Ethiopia, rose grower/exporter Karuturi Global, has been perhaps the most prominent beneficiary of what many people say are the government’s ‘land grabs ’ from its citizens.

Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, the company’s founder, dismisses the attacks. In a recent interview, he gave some of his perspectives on land and farming in his host country.

”Land is an emotive and contentious issue. Of the 300 million hectares of land we have, only one-third is arable. Africa is better in terms of productivity, costs, taxes, duty-free access to European markets because of their least developed country status. A rose from India, when it lands in Europe, will cost about 14 euro cents and it will be about 30% less from East Africa,“ said Karuturi.

Clearly he is a bold entrepreneur, and no doubt that alone rubs some people the wrong way. As he repeatedly points out, his company is doing nothing without the approval of the Ethiopian government. But if the investment is seen by many Ethiopians as being because of a closeness to the sitting government rather than as being of benefit to the country, Karuturi is inevitably breeding long-term local resentment in addition to roses.

As seen in Zimbabwe, the ‘security of tenure’ and economic success that is built on the mistreatment of the local people may not be as secure as it seems, even if the comeuppance is many decades later. If the political situation suddenly changes, land tenure based on a perceived crony relationship with the previous ruling political dispensation will be one of the first things to be reformed.  

Karuturi has also been quoted as scoffing that many of the attacks on his and others’ land investments in Ethiopia and other African countries is by Western critics who have yet to come to terms with how China and India are displacing the West in many areas of engagement in Africa. While this cannot be dismissed entirely, Karuturi is ironically also making some of the same colonial - style moves that created long-standing resentment not only in Africa, but in his country India as well.

For example, it is quite likely that even for Ethiopians who basically support the investment thrust of their government and welcome the contributions of companies like Karuturi, the company’s widely publicized plan to bring in thousands of Indian tenant farmers to its Ethiopian holdings will be seen as a step too far. It suggests thinking and attitudes that are amazingly reminiscent of the origins of the complicated mix of land-related problems that plague Zimbabwe today.

In the land grabs from Africans of a century ago, the colonial governments obviously did not need to worry about the ‘public opinion’ of the dispossessed, disgruntled Africans. Today, no matter how autocratic a government may be, it is neither advisable nor entirely possible to ignore public sentiment. From a distance, in this regard the Ethiopian government seems to have contributed to the negative perception of the current land deals/grabs by poorly explaining them, and riding roughshod over critics. For both investors and host governments, these too are issues that may have an expensive belated political cost.

Zimbabwe is just one and perhaps the best known, most notorious example of the explosive potential of long unresolved land issues that Ethiopia could learn some lessons from on what to do and what not to do as it seeks to develop and ‘modernize’ its agriculture. It will be fascinating to watch how Ethiopia tackles the clash of land-related issues that have defied easy solution in many other African countries.

AfricanAgriculture

South Sudan: land ownership a major challenge for investors

by Shadia Basheri

The Sudanese Businessmen & Employers Union (SBEU) is one of the organizations on which the Sudanese government greatly depends in its endeavor to promote the Sudanese national economy and boost development.

The SBEU's mission has become more and more important, particularly in light of the economic changes that are taking place in the country following the secession of South Sudan. These changes have greatly affected the economic structure of the country.

Accordingly, SBEU has earnestly embarked upon the mission by presenting proposals to the government for solving the economic difficulties the country is facing following recent announcement by the government that SBEU will take up the role of managing investment in the country.

In order to shed light on the activities of SBEU, particularly those to be undertaken by it in the coming phase, Sudan Vision interviewed SBUE secretary-general, Bakri Yousif Omer as follows:

Q: We have noticed that foreign investment is focusing on the service sector. Why is that?

A: As a matter of fact after petroleum, investment on the service sector is among those the government is targeting. For example, agricultural investments are bigger and have many benefits.

As you know agricultural investment in Sudan is very little and is not sufficient for achieving food security. This is why SBEU has always been calling for more of it since Sudan has vast fertile agricultural lands.

Q: What are the most important issues of agricultural investments that the government has to deal with?

A: The problem of ownership of land is one of the biggest issues that face agricultural investment in the county. However, the Higher Council for Investment (HCI) has started to look into this matter to find a solution to it. We must have a vision regarding agricultural investments. Foreign and local investors should mark their contribution in the region and show can they address the positive social impact of investments.

Q: Has SBEU ever participated in international or regional conferences?

A: SBEU has contributed to many conferences and meetings. As you may know, the Islamic Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has created a body called Business Employers which is located in Pakistan. In addition, we have participated at a conference in the State of Qatar on December 2 in which young people participated. Moreover, Islamic chambers of commerce have many important projects.

For example, there is a proposal for a railway project that links some African countries to Port Sudan that passes through Darfur. This proposal has been submitted by Sheikh Kamil.

Also Turkey has Africa bridge project and the African-Turkish Relations Forum. Internally, we have launched a Diplomacy Day for ambassadors accredited to Khartoum.

Moreover, SBEU has participated in many conferences, meetings and seminars through the Council of Arab Chambers of Industry, Commerce, and Agriculture and SBEU is represented in its board of directors. We are also active in this.

In addition, we are members of the Arab Businessmen federation as well as the Arab European Chamber s board. At the African level, we are members of the COMESA and IGAD.

Q: Has the COMESA made things easier for Sudanese businessmen with respect to exports and imports and what problems do you face?

A: As a matter of fact we are no more isolated. It is important for any country to join regional blocs.

At this stage of history and in light of the new millennium, Arab countries have realized the importance of joining African blocs, such as the Arab Free Trade Region and COMESA.

Yes, in any economic activity there are negative and positive sides. On the negative side, you have the removal of custom duties that are negatively reflected on local industry.

For example, Sudan has got plenty of natural resources for manufacturing but despite that we import. An example of this is that tea and coffee are amongst these imports and so COMESA affects commodities.

As regards problems that we face is that we suffer from the similarity of our productions which affect the COMESA market. In addition, poor roads greatly affect the economy and hence the government should reduce transportation fees since all industries in the COMESA region are still young.

Q: SBEU has recently held many meetings, such as those with Council of Arab Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Agriculture as well as Islamic Chambers of Commerce and Industry Boards. What is the purpose of these meetings?

A: All these meetings have been sponsored by the President of the Republic and in these meetings; many papers were presented relating to investment opportunities and transparency.

We still receive thanks and appreciations from Arab and foreign chambers of commerce and this will contribute to the boosting of investment in Sudan.

In addition, papers on agricultural investment opportunities in Sudan for achieving Arab Security have been presented.

Q: What are the most important problems that face the Union?

A: There are many economic problems, such as financing policies. For example we are aware of government initiatives and we are waiting for these initiatives to be implemented on the ground. You know we work hand in hand with the government.

Q: Are there any joint investment cooperation with the State of South Sudan following secession?

A: We have agreed with the State of South Sudan before secession that we form a strategic partnership which we called smart partnership.

We have presented our vision so that the relation would be fabulous whether South Sudan seceded or not.

We have taken on board banks and presented initiatives but the general atmosphere needed an economic force and we must build good relationship in order to remove all obstacles, particularly in the light of the need of South Sudan for commodities.

Q: We want to know what have your union contributed to the civil society?

A: We have many contributions as I mentioned in Darfur and in the capital, for example our contribution to Ibrahim Malik and Ahmed Kasim Hospital. In addition, we have contributed to political parties and provided great support to various bodies.

Q: What type of relation do you have with Investment Commission?

A: The commission has been established at the state level and it came about in implementation of the federal system according to Naivasha peace agreement.

Q: What is your role in securing the lives of businessmen?

A: Since our meeting with Dr. Garang in 2005, he called on businessmen to work in an institutionalized way for ensuring investment in the South. At that time, finance was being provided by the government South Sudan. We agreed and held two forums but our activities were suspended.

Had such policy been implemented it would have had great impact. We must represent such initiative to the government of Sudan.

Q: What else do you want to say?

A: I would like to thank Sudan Vision for its covering of our activities and for being engaged in all issues that take place in the Union.

Sudan Vision

State cocoa board established in Côte d’Ivoire

The government of Côte d’Ivoire has announced the establishment of a ‘state-controlled cocoa body’. This will bring under one body the functions of four current organisations, and will include international marketing of the cocoa crop. Marketing activities are likely to commence in early 2012. By engaging in forward selling, the new cocoa body ‘aims to encourage certainty and stability in the country's cocoa industry, and help enhance the prosperity of growers’. However this could serve to flood global markets, given the scale of Ivorian cocoa production.

Analysts suggest that buyers may be wary of concluding forward contracts with an organisation without an established track record, in a country newly emerged from civil war and where political instability still threatens. It is maintained that the new body cannot simply replicate the experience of the Ghanaian state cocoa authority (Cocobod), given the well-established market presence of the latter.

With the establishment of an Ivorian state-controlled cocoa body, potentially scope exists for closer collaboration between the two major West African cocoa producers. This could include the area of marketing, with the experience of the Ghanaian authority being deployed to provide assistance to the newly established Ivorian body, in order to prevent its operations from undermining established markets. Such collaboration could also offer scope for coordinating policies on producer prices, thereby reducing cross-border smuggling of cocoa.

The impact of this decision on the short term (i.e. in 2012), could be a drop in world cocoa prices, as Côte d’Ivoire will be putting two crops on the market: the current 2011/12 crop, to be sold more or less on spot markets, and the forthcoming 2012/13 crop to be sold on the futures market. According to certain traders, this could lead to a drop on London futures markets to £ 1,400 a tonne.

Looking further on, if Côte d’Ivoire does want to compete on world markets and keep the lead, a reform is not only necessary but vital. However, the success of this reform depends on the pace of its implementation, which could be quite slow given what is at stake. One of the aims of the reform is to reduce the number of intermediaries between farm and export of cocoa beans (currently there may be up to eight) in order to reduce the costs and increase the overall efficiency of the cocoa supply chain, thereby allowing producers to capture a higher percentage of the sale price.

Small scale cocoa farmers face additional challenges such as replacing ageing trees, an issue that should be taken into account in the government’s wider efforts to reorganise the sector. This could build on recent initiatives such as the memorandum of understanding signed by Cargill and ANADER, Cote d'Ivoire's national rural development agency. This involves support to farmer training and farmer organisation and the distribution of 600,000 cocoa tree seedlings to help improve and renew existing cocoa farms. Such public–private sector partnerships could be multiplied to embrace a sector-wide rehabilitation programme.

Agritrade

Pros and cons of approving GM crops discussed at Tanzania workshop

by Finnigan Wa Simbeye



A legal officer at the Kenyan Vice- President's Office, Isakwisa Lameck said the country should tread slowly and carefully before allowing GMOs to be researched in the country prior to their being authorized for cultivation and consumption.

He said while Kenya and Uganda have allowed confined field trials for GE crops, Kampala does not have even a law to government such research work. "We should be allowed to take time before adopting the technology," Lameck said during a Agriculture Council of Tanzania stakeholders' workshop held in Dar es Salaam recently. Researchers are pressing for a review of the country's restrictive regulations.

"We should be allowed to do some research so that the government can make informed decisions. As we stand now, our researchers have to go to Kenya or Uganda to do their work on GMOs," argued Dr Roshan Abdallah from Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI).


Dr Abdallah pointed out that delays in reforming the country's rigid laws against GE crops is denying farmers an opportunity to adopt useful technology that can change poverty levels in rural areas as yields will be increased.

She noted that as climate change takes its toll of the country's weather pattern with frequent droughts, GE crops are a solution to ensure food security and poverty reduction.

"We shouldn't be left out while the whole world is adopting this technology," Dr Abdallah argued as officials at Commission for Science and Technology (Costech) express frustrations against the slow pace of reforms to accommodate GMOs.

In Africa, only South Africa and Egypt have allowed commercial cultivation and consumption of GE crops while Mali has adopted GE cotton only. Many African countries are skeptical of the technology which it's adversary warn has unknown environmental and health hazards.

Worldwide less than 16 countries led by the United States and Brazil allow cultivation and consumption of Frankenstein crops.


Presenting a paper on 'Increased Agricultural Productivity,'Prof Deogratius Rutatora said local farmers yield between 1.5 to 1.7 metric tons of maize per hectare because of poor quality of seeds used, low fertilizer use and low level of education among rural farmers.

Prof Rutatora said the country's agriculture sector is generally stunted in growth although efforts have been made over the past five decades to improve the situation with annual growth of 4.4 per cent last year from 3.3 per cent over two decades ago.

"Sometimes I wonder why are we continuing with subsistence farming," wondered the Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) don.


Agriculture's contribution to gross domestic product has decreased from over 44 per cent in 1980s to less than 30 per cent at present. Babati Rural lawmaker, Jitu Soni urged the government to speed up establishment of an agriculture bank this fiscal year, to bail out farmers from harsh lending conditions including hiked interest rates charged by banks.

"We have already endorsed the government's budget in parliament and look forward to establishment of the bank," Mr Soni noted.

Soni said rural farmers face a lot of problems including financing, lack of extension officers and poor infrastructure to access markets. President Jakaya Kikwete has pledged that his government will allocate 100bn/- annually to support the agrobank in the next five years.


Tanzania Daily News

Ivorian cocoa reform to impose buy quotas for exporters

by Ange Aboa

Planned reforms to Ivory Coast's cocoa sector will impose quarterly quotas on

exporters' purchases to prevent big players from using their dominant position to manipulate the market, according to the latest draft obtained by Reuters on October 14.

The reforms in the world's top grower, which supplies 40 percent of the world market, will also scrap individually negotiated tax breaks to some exporters with local grinding capacity. The export tax is 14.6 percent, but some exporters who grind beans into semi-finished cocoa products locally managed to negotiate a discount, which will now be removed.And it will require exporters to pay a 10 percent deposit on all cocoa purchases from the state, the document from the agriculture ministry says, though it does not give details on how quotas would be worked out beyond saying they would apply to all exporters.

President Alassane Ouattara's government is attempting to introduce sweeping reforms to the sector with the core aim of guaranteeing its hundreds of thousands of smallholders a minimum selling  price. However, nothing has yet been finalised. Officials involved in

the reform talks say the government hopes to publish a definitive reform  plan by next month before it is adopted. The reform will also need the approval of the World Bank to

enable Ivory Coast to secure much needed debt relief, which was delayed by a violent four-month post-election conflict.

The reforms will effectively end a decade of liberalisation, which critics say left farmers beholden to the whims of international commodity markets, creating uncertainty that discouraged investment in their plantations and left the industry in disarray. Exporters have raised some concerns about the draft plans relating to transport costs and quality controls.

The reforms will guarantee farmers a minimum selling price, bringing the sector more in line with the regulated industry in Ghana, the world's No. 2 grower whose cocoa farming is more efficient and delivers yields per hectare around double those of Ivory Coast.

Farmers will get at least half of the average export price for the season, including insurance and transport costs -- a price the state will establish by selling more than three quarters of the cocoa ahead of time in forward contracts. But it will also place limits each quarter on the amount of cocoa each exporter can buy, according to the document obtained by Reuters on October 14. The limit will be the same for everyone, the document says.

 “To prevent the abuse of dominant positions in the market, an

upper limit will be imposed to licensed exporters," the document says.

Regulatory officials say this will not affect big buyers such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, which will still be able to meet their production needs. It will deter only speculators seeking to buy up cocoa to manipulate the price, they say.

In another section, the draft says tax reforms would "erase the tax advantage currently accorded by the state to cocoa grinders".

Ivorian officials complain that grinders are registering beans for processing to get the tax break but only using some of them, while others are still exported raw.

Exporters will have to pay a 10 percent deposit on forward cocoa orders in order to "guarantee the viability of the system," the document adds. "Each trader will pay the deposit 48 hours in advance," it says.

Ouattara wants reforms in motion as soon as possible. They were temporarily derailed by a violent power struggle between him and former president Laurent Gbagbo over a disputed election last November. They now are seen as the last hurdle to IMF and World Bank debt relief on some $3 billion of obligations.

Reuters

Kenya: new rules for safe handling of GMOs

by Allan Odhiambo


The government has set tough procedures and punitive fines to ensure safe handling and movement of genetically modified (GM) crops, which it hopes will tackle perennial shortage of staple foods such as maize.

According to new regulations published by acting Higher Education, Science and Technology minister Hellen Sambili, any person intending to export, import or transit a product derived from genetically modified organisms must first obtain written approval from the National Biosafety Authority.

And even upon approval, such products would still be strictly monitored to ensure conformity with laid-out rules and regulations on areas such as packaging and declaration of the GM status.

Anyone who contravenes the set guidelines on the import, export and transit of GM products would face a fine of up to Sh20 million or a prison term not exceeding ten years, or both.

To ensure elaborate scrutiny, all applications for authority to handle GM products would be handled by an array of State agencies that deal with plant health regulation such as Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (Kephis).

The scrutiny of applications has also been accorded a lengthy grace period of up to five months in a bid to ensure comprehensiveness in the vetting task.

The new regulations said the Biosafety Authority shall within 14 days screen for completeness of applications and circulate to the relevant regulatory agencies for further information, comments or reasoned objections.

The Authority shall then communicate its final decision to the applicant within 150 days of receiving the application, but not earlier than 90 days of such receipt in order to allow for sufficient vetting.

It will cost an applicant Sh25,000 to table a request to import or export GM products.

The regulations indicated that GM products that shall have existed in the market for up to two decades without causing negative effects on human health as well as the environment would be exempted from regular approval cycles.

“Where a genetically modified organism has been released into the environment or placed on the market for twenty years with approval from authority,” the new regulations read, “and the authority establishes that monitoring data indicates no risk to human health and the environment, the genetically modified organism may continue to be released to the environment or placed on the market without further approval.”


“No GMO maize should be used as seeds under any circumstances. All flour produced from GMO maize must be clearly labeled as a product of GMO maize,” it said.


Finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta has also zero-rated duty on maize imports for the rest of this year as part of efforts to guarantee cheaper supplies to consumers.

Business Daily Africa

Tanzania: participatory approach needed to avoid agro investor-locals conflicts

This is the week in which Tanzania celebrates farmers’ day, known as Nane Nane.  As Tanzanians celebrate the day it is important to discuss some of the emerging issues in agricultural investments across the globe in general and Tanzania in particular.

The discussions are important in raising issues that need policy attention as well as better legal and regulatory framework. The objective is to shape the agricultural and related sectors in such a way that it will deliver the desired outputs first and foremost for Tanzanians and by extension to the greater humanity.

Partly due to the global food crisis, there has been a surge in foreign direct investments (FDIs) that focus on food production in Africa, including Tanzania for use abroad in the foreign investors’ countries and not in the FDI host economy. Emerging interests to acquire huge tracks of ‘agricultural’ land in Africa by investors from outside the continent and within the continent (South Africa in particular) are raising issues and questions of land-grabbing in Africa.

Other issues related to new forms of FDIs in agriculture include food production on the African soil in order to feed human beings and animals in the investors’ countries. Emerging issues include the use of food insecure Africa to provide food security to investors. Among the current interests of such forms of FDI in agriculture has been witnessed by the oil-rich Gulf countries.

Good as it may be, this new form of foreign investment in agriculture calls for pro-active and proper policy, legal and regulatory framework. This among other things will help in making sure that there is a win-win situation between and among all the involved parties.

Another emerging issue in agricultural investment across the globe in general and Tanzania in particular is investment in bio fuel production. This is a relatively new trend where agricultural produce like maize and sugarcane are planted in order to be used as source of energy mainly in rich industrialized countries instead of feeding human beings.

The debate also extends to environmental degradation, livelihood support systems as well as land grabbing issues. These issues, among other things call also for pro-active and proper policy, legal and regulatory frameworks if Tanzania is to meaningfully benefit from these emerging trends.

Of late, investments in agriculture as is the case in mining and other land-based economic undertakings have caused conflicts. There are conflicts between farmers – both local and foreign – and livestock keepers; forest products extractors and many other groups. Conflicts between local communities and foreign investors have been observed in number of places. This is mainly so in natural-resources-based investments including agriculture. Major issues revolve around resource use conflicts. Instances of clashes between small scale and large miners over access to mineral deposits are a common occurrence in a number of mining sites (for example Nyamongo and Mererani areas in Tanzania).

Within agriculture conflicts revolve around land and water sources ownership and use. The case of Karatu Kiru valley sugarcane farming where one of the investors was killed by local community on May 31, 2011 serves as an illustration. Another ensuing conflict may be that of the American company AgriSol Energy LLC in Mpanda. The bone of contention includes the alleged 99 years lease of about 300,000 acres of land by the government to the investor in the former refugees’ camp area.

Critical voices complain about the peanut sum of money (said to be Sh00 per acre per year!) the government will get for leasing the land. Mpanda District Council expects to get between Sh500 and Sh700 per acre as taxes.

Thinking of how much money an investor like AgriSol can make from an acre of land given the investor’s financial and technological capability the Sh700 tax per acre turns the policies and legal frameworks on charging it into a laughing stock. Another issue from the affected villagers include lack of participatory approaches in the whole saga. It is argued that their voices, views, inputs and opinions were not sought in the process.

To avoid violent conflicts between and within agricultural investors and other groups of land users negotiations and participatory approaches are extremely important. However, there should be adequate negotiation capacities and quality participatory approaches. These are likely to be inadequate in most local levels, especially at district and village levels. These are among the issues that call for pro-active policy, legal and regulatory frameworks if land-based conflicts are to be avoided.

The Citizen

DR Congo passes first agriculture framework act

The Congolese parliament approved the very first framework act for the agricultural sector. New in the D.R. Congo are the introduction of an agricultural register and the establishment of a national foundation for agriculture development.

Seventy percent of the Congolese population depends on agriculture. No other sector contributes more to the gross national product.

However, in Congo farming is not yet perceived as a fully-fledged job. The lack of a cohesive agriculture policy is costing the country tons of money. Yearly, 640,000 tons of food have to be imported from abroad to feed the Congolese population.

Years of discussion preceded the framework act. Initially, the Congolese policy makers were convinced that all prosperity would come from large-scale plantations and not from the many micro-farmers. “Luckily the law acknowledges the importance of family farming for the Congolese economy.”

Trias

US, don't follow European lead on GM crops

Don't go all European about modified food

by Dick Taverne

For over a decade, genetically modified crops have been one of the test issues for evidence-based policy. On the whole the US, unlike Europe, has been a haven of good sense. It has based policy on scientific evidence and has led the way in the development and cultivation of GM crops.

This is in stark contrast to most European countries, where such crops are banned or severely restricted and are regularly trashed by green vandals even when grown for research. But there are worrying signs that US policy is about to change.

Outside Europe, GM has been applied more rapidly and extensively than any other new technology in the history of farming. In 1996 GM crops covered some 1.7 million hectares worldwide. By 2009 the figure was 134 million hectares, much of it in the developing world. Various crops that will help reduce disease and hunger are nearing commercial cultivation, from golden rice that can prevent children going blind to crops that may help farmers in Africa cope with drought and avoid losses from pests and diseases.

GM cultivation has been most intensive in the US. Nearly all soya, cotton and corn in the country is now genetically modified, benefitting consumers, farmers and the environment. Herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops have reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides, promoted no-till farming – so reducing soil erosion and carbon dioxide emissions – and have increased yields.

However, a coalition of anti-GM activists and a small but growing number of organic farmers are now making their influence felt in the US. In 2005, after field trials lasting eight years, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant alfalfa. The decision was challenged by activists, but after a lengthy review the USDA concluded that GM alfalfa should cause no concern for regulators, farmers or consumers. Nevertheless, under pressure from this coalition, the department is now considering strict rules on where the crops may be planted, to prevent "contamination" by GM seeds blown into fields of conventionally or organically grown alfalfa. A decision is expected this week.

The signs are not good. At a recent congressional hearing, secretary for agriculture Tom Vilsack expressed his support for science-based policy and biotechnology, but ominously added that he supported the cultivation of organic products and would seek "co-existence" between GM and organic farmers. That implies restrictions on GM alfalfa to prevent contamination of organic fields. Farmers and companies that use and sell GM seeds and invest in research reasonably fear that if restrictions are imposed on GM alfalfa, limits on other GM crops will follow, and US policy will begin to converge with that of Europe.

Opposition to GM by green and organic lobbies is one of the main reasons why so many European Union countries ban or restrict their cultivation. It is a movement against science. The world's leading science academies have all concluded that, after 15 years of cultivation and consumption by millions of people, there is no evidence that GM crops harm human health or the environment.

By contrast the organic movement is based on the scientific fallacy that natural chemicals are good and synthetic chemicals bad. It ignores evidence and has consistently failed to substantiate any of its own claims. A meticulous review sponsored by the UK's Food Standards Agency recently found no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown food (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol 90, p 680).

Meanwhile, irrational rules deem that crops containing traces of genes from GM crops via cross-pollination cannot be certified as organic. These rules can be, and have been, invoked to stop the cultivation of GM crops.

As for claims that organic farming is better for the environment, yields from organic farms are generally 20 to 50 per cent lower than those from conventional farms. Organic farming makes less efficient use of land while the world desperately needs the exact opposite.

Encouraged by the European Commission, which has confirmed scientific support for GM crops, attitudes in some EU countries are changing. In the UK more friendly noises issue from the agricultural ministry, and the government's chief scientist, John Beddington, has stated that GM crops have a vital part to play in feeding the world. Meanwhile sales of organic food have declined. But if the US changes tack, green objectors will appear vindicated. Their influence in Europe will be enhanced and the consequences will be far-reaching. It will be a triumph for unreason.

* Dick Taverne is founder and chair of Sense About Science, an independent charitable trust based in London that promotes the evidence-based approach to the public discussion of scientific issues. He is a member of the House of Lords and was a government minister from 1966 to 1970.

New Scientist

South African union welcomes proposal to limit foreign land ownership

by Hopewell Radebe

Nehawu has called on President Jacob Zuma "to show courage and decisive leadership" by limiting or banning foreign land ownership in South Africa following the ANC’s January 8th statement in which the party announced plans to restrict foreign land ownership to leasehold.

The National Education Health & Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) said these measures will help fast track land reform and restitution in order to develop rural economy.

"The lack of government’s clear and unambiguous position regarding land reform and restitution in SA is something that needs urgent attention considering the high poverty levels in this country," said Sizwe Pamla, union’s media liaison officer.

The union said in a statement this morning that SA needed to guard against putting a "for sale" sign on this country’s most valuable assert by allowing "foreign land ownership when we can lease the land to those who want to invest in our country".

Organised agriculture warned on Monday against Mr Zuma’s statement saying the ANC was tinkering with property rights at SA’s peril and challenged the government to speed up land reform and allow the private sector to play a more prominent role.

Zuma used the Polokwane rally where the party celebrated its 99th year in existence to revive the state’s controversial plan to limit foreign ownership of land, an initiative that stalled after a government probe in 2006 found that only about 5% of land in SA was foreign owned. The plan was shelved after an uproar from analysts and local real estate agents who warned that it would send the wrong signal to investors.

The union said it was totally unacceptable that after seventeen years since the fall of apartheid, SA had only handed over "an abysmal 6% to the previously landless communities". "Our government has been held to ransom by white landowners and political parties whose narrow vision for this country is still blurred racial prejudice and economic self interest," Mr Pamla said.

The union said current landowners would prefer that land reform and restitution to be deferred indefinitely hence their opposition to the concept of expropriation, even if it is done within the ambitof the law.

The union urged the government to extricate the rural poor from the cycle of poverty by ensuring that they have access to land, training and resources in order to practice both subsistence and commercial farming. It said landlessness was being exacerbated by capitalists who were buying what was traditionally farming land to build golf courses and other luxuries at the expense of the poor. It said that unguarded land acquisition policy was resulting in the displacements of the indigenous people.

Business Day

COMESA to spearhead new policies for GM crops for eastern, southern Africa

by Cosmus Butunyi

A new set of policies governing commercial production and trade in genetically modified agricultural produce is set to come into force in East and Southern Africa.

The process of formulating the guidelines, which will also be applied for emergency food aid containing genetically modified organisms that enters the region, are being spearheaded by the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) through a specialised agency responsible for trade in agricultural commodities, the Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (Actesa).

Already, a team of experts from the region have developed draft policies that are awaiting endorsement by the Comesa council of ministers and heads of state summit. Actesa chief executive Dr Cris Muyunda, said that the new rules would accelerate the adoption of genetic engineering in the region in a bid to facilitate trade in agricultural commodities.

Presently, the value of intra-regional trade stands at $15 billion, out of which agricultural produce takes 40 per cent.  Muyunda said that was very low compared with the amount of food imports brought into the region, estimated at $20 billion.

“We are not supposed to import food, we have enough land to grow our own. The potential for increasing trade in agricultural products is very high,” he stated, adding that poor productivity had contributed to the current state of affairs.

The director of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications Dr Margaret Karembu said that this had resulted in Africa being the most burdened in terms of global hunger distribution.

Experts have stated that genetic modification provides an avenue through which agricultural productivity can be boosted to improve food security as well as trade in agricultural produce.

African countries are currently at different levels of adopting modern biotechnology, and so far, only three countries have embarked on commercial production: South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt. Out of these, only Egypt falls within the Comesa region.

Dr Michael Waithaka, a programme manager in charge of policy analysis and advocacy at the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (Asareca), said that a roadmap would be developed towards promoting commercial production of genetically modified organisms.

However, adoption of the technology has remained slow over the years, a trend that has been attributed to concerns over the technology’s effects on the environment and human health. This is despite biotechnology being recommended in important fora due to its potential to improve agricultural production in Africa.

Comesa panel of experts on biotechnology chairman Dr Abbas Kodjo said that heads of African states and governments under the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) have in the past recommended it for development. Kodjo added that the United Nations general assembly has also passed two resolutions calling for strengthening of biotechnology.

The East African

Angola approves biofuel law

Angola's parliament has approved a law meant to support biofuel production, as the government tries to diversify the economy which currently depends on oil, national radio said.

"Biofuels will create jobs and a renewable supply of energy for the future," oil minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos told parliament, in remarks broadcast on radio.

The law sets out rules for producing biofuels and regulates the role of foreigners in the industry.

Agriculture Minister Afonso Pedro Kanga noted concerns that developping biofuels could harm Angola's efforts to revive food crops, after most of the nation's farms were abandoned during the 27-year civil war that ended in 2002.

He told the lawmakers that only "marginal" lands would be allowed to produce biofuels, saying the most fertile lands would be reserved for food production.

The UN Food and Agriculture Office last year voiced concern about foreign investors leasing African lands to produce crops for export, at the expense of water and food supplies for locals.

Under the new law, foreign companies that invest in biofuels will have to ensure that the local populations have access to water, basic services and medical care.

Foreign firms will also be required to sell a portion of their biofuels to the state oil company Sonangol to supply the local market.

Although Angola vies with Nigeria as Africa's top oil producer, it does not refine enough fuel to meet the national demand.

AFP

Scientists, donors blast Ethiopia's biosafety law as extreme, anti-biotechnology

by Peter Heinlein

Scientists and farmers are urging Ethiopia to reconsider a new biodiversity law they say restricts agricultural research and could hamper delivery of urgently needed food aid. The law has prompted foreign donors to cut off funding to Ethiopian scientific research institutions.

Ethiopia's government held a two day forum in early February to hear objections to a Biodiversity Proclamation approved by parliament last July, on the final day before summer recess. The law's stated objective is to protect biodiversity, as well as human health and animals, from 'the adverse effects of modified organisms.'

But critics say the proclamation chokes off research into improving crop production in a country suffering chronic food shortages. Tilaye Feyisa, assistant professor of plant biotechnology at Addis Ababa University says anyone involved in studying genetic engineering is subject to strict government regulation.

"It is an excellent proclamation to prevent research in plant genetic engineering," said Tilaye Feyisa. "If you break this proclamation, even unintentionally, you can be put in prison for one to three years."

Tilaye says funding for research on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has dried up since the law went into effect.

"The money we get is from outside sources," said Tilaye. "We write proposals, when the country is against GMOs, having this proclamation, we don't get any money for research from foreign donors. It is killing scientific research."

Tilahun Zewelde is a former plant scientist at the Ethiopian Research Organization. He now work at Uganda's Agriculture Biotechnology Support Program. Speaking at this week's meeting, he charged Ethiopia's law was written by environmental extremists and adopted without review by a parliament that had no idea of its consequences.

"We can't even teach students life science and biotechnology," said Tilahun Zewelde. "It was drafted by very biased people. They believe biotechnology is bad, genetic engineering is bad and multinationals are going to take over everything, control the seed business. And the actual technology users were not involved in the drafting process. So it's one sided, not good for the country."

Biotechnology experts from other African nations came to the forum to express concerns about the Biosafety Proclamation. Togolese scientist Jacob Mignouna is Technical Director of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation. He says the law rejects conclusive evidence about the safety of genetically modified organisms in common use.

"There's no need to reinvent the wheel," said Jacob Mignouna. "The world has moved on. This technology has been proven. This is the message our colleagues from Ethiopia should understand.We must look carefully and see how we can move forward to embrace new technology while at the same time protecting biodiversity."

But Minister of State for Agricultural Development Abera Deresa says Ethiopia is not convinced by available evidence that GMOs are safe. The Agriculture Ministry was a sponsor of the forum, but Abera says the government has a duty to protect the public until the scientific community does more to prove GMOs pose no threat to health or to Ethiopia's biodiversity.

"Among scientists there is a division," said Abera Deresa. "A certain number of scientists who are not for GMO, a certain number of scientists who are for GMO. So we have to assess why this is happening." He says the government is reviewing the Biosafety Proclamation, and may ask parliament to make changes.

Meanwhile, aid donors say the law could restrict shipments of food intended for more than five million Ethiopians facing malnutrition.

The United States provides nearly 80 per cent of Ethiopia's food assistance. Among the U.S. supplies currently on the way is roughly 30,000 metric tons of corn-soy blend and vegetable oil, which are typically produced from bioengineered corn and soy. The Ethiopian government has issued a waiver to allow the products to come in to the country, but the waiver is due to expire at the end of February.

VOA

Farming is big business in US, but some green activists are seeking to destroy it

by Joel Kotkin

In this high-tech information age few look to the most basic industries as sources of national economic power. Yet no sector in America is better positioned for the future than agriculture--if we allow it to reach its potential.

Like manufacturers and homebuilders before them, farmers have found themselves in the crosshairs of urban aesthetes and green activists who hope to impose their own Utopian vision of agriculture. This vision includes shutting down large-scale scientifically run farms and replacing them with small organic homesteads and urban gardens.

Troublingly, the assault on mainstream farmers is moving into the policy arena. It extends to cut-offs on water, stricter rules on the use of pesticides, prohibitions on the caging of chickens and a growing movement to ban the use of genetic engineering in crops. And it could undermine a sector that has performed well over the past decade and has excellent long-term prospects.

Over the next 40 years the world will be adding some 3 billion people. These people will not only want to eat, they will want to improve their intake of proteins, grains, fresh vegetables and fruits. The U.S., with the most arable land and developed agricultural production, stands to gain from these growing markets. Last year the U.S.' export surplus in agriculture grew to nearly $35 billion, compared with roughly $5 billion in 2005.

The overall impact of agriculture on the economy is much greater than generally assumed, notes my colleague Delore Zimmerman, of Praxis Strategy Group. Roughly 4.1 million people are directly employed in production agriculture as farmers, ranchers and laborers, but the industry directly or indirectly employs approximately one out of six American workers, including those working in food processing, marketing, shipping and supermarkets.

Yet none of this seems to be slowing the mounting criticisms of "corporate agriculture." A typical article in Time, called "Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food," assailed the "U.S. agricultural industry" for precipitating an ecological disaster. "With the exhaustion of the soil, the impact of global warming and the inevitably rising price of oil--which will affect everything from fertilizer to supermarket electricity bills--our industrial style of food production," the article predicts, "will end sooner or later."

Forbes 

Kenya: Testing ground for GMOs

by Philip Brasher

What happens here in Kenya could change the way the world views genetically modified food. Whether it really makes a positive difference in the lives of Africans remains to be seen.

Why is Kenya key? The first reason is obvious enough. The first transgenic, drought-tolerant maize crop intended for east Africa will be grown in
field trials next year.

But there are other reasons why Kenya has to be watched: Kenya is on track to implement the first policy for regulating agricultural biotechnology in east Africa, and U.S. officials see the country as a gateway to opening the way for biotech crops in other countries in the region.

According to the USDA, Kenya actually imported 700,000 tons of white corn fromSouth Africa this year without testing for it for GMOs. That’s notable because most of the corn now grown in South Africa is genetically engineered.

Kenya also exemplifies both the potential as well as the problems facing African agriculture. The nation is a leading supplier of horticultural products to Europe, yet droughts regularly devastate farmers in large swaths of the country. When that happens, farmers bring their livestock into Nairobi, including some of the city’s lush, middle-class neighborhoods.

They are all gone now, but a friend described the scene recently this way: “Men moved 200 head of cattle into our neighborhood, along with a small herd of sheep. There is a vacant lot a block from us and they lived there, taking them out each day to eat what they could from alongside the road. They also ate vegetation like my palm trees, papyrus, or any green, growing thing.”

According to the projections, Kenya also faces the same challenges of adapting to climate change as other parts of Africa, and the United States, too, for that matter. Parts of the country, which already receive reliable rainfall, could actually increase crop yields, while other regions are likely to have even more problems with drought than they already do.

In any case, Kenya and the surrounding region need to increase their food supplies, either by producing more or importing more, to keep up with predicted population growth. Demand for corn, a staple food in much of Africa as rice is in Asia, is expected to nearly triple by 2050, according to a recent study by researchers at the International Livestock Research Institute.

In October I sat down with Columbia University's Pedro Sanchez, the 2002 World Food Prize winner for his work using trees to fertilize African crops, and asked him for his thoughts on this transgenic, drought-tolerant corn. Sanchez says the most immediate needs of smallholder farmers are access to fertilizers, good hybrid seeds, extension agents and reliable markets. But drought-tolerant corn is vitally needed, too, he says, because of the crop's vulnerability to dry spells and the importance of corn as a staple food.

Early Monday morning, I head to a research farm operated by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, or CIMMYT, where the transgenic corn trials are taking place and where researchers already are improving drought tolerance through conventional breeding. Later I’ll be visiting smallholder farmers, agricultural leaders, government officials, experts with NGOs, and others to learn more about the challenges facing food production and to get as wide array of views as possible on the prospects for a GMO crop.

Pulitzer Center

Gates moves beyond seeds and fertilizer to influencing policy in Africa

by Donna Gordon Blankinship

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced plans October 15 to move beyond seeds, fertilizer and agriculture extension services and into politics and public policy in its efforts to bring a green revolution to sub-Saharan Africa.

The foundation announced nine grants totaling nearly $120 million a few hours before Bill Gates was scheduled to give his first major speech on agriculture as the keynote speaker at the World Food Prize event in Des Moines, Iowa.

In the past three years, the Gates Foundation has committed $1.4 billion to help small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia increase their yields and incomes. The foundation got involved in agriculture after years of trying to solve worldwide health problems.

About half of the grants announced October 15 will go toward agriculture research in Africa, including experiments with sorghum, millet, legumes and sweet potatoes. But several unusual projects were included, including proposals to use cell phones and radio programs to educate small farmers.

The foundation gave the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa $15 million to influence agricultural policy in more than a dozen African nations. The alliance won't be lobbying for policy changes, but they will be doing research on what kinds of policy changes would best stimulate agricultural growth in the region and will be training Africans to advocate for themselves.

AGRA plans to train about 400 agriculture economists at several African universities so they can analyze policies and advocate for change, said Namanga Ngongi, president of the alliance, in a telephone interview from Des Moines on Tuesday.

"Technical solutions can only go so far because there are many blockages to development," said Ngongi, who is based in Nairobi, Kenya. He said many African governments have committed to spend more on agriculture development, but they need help figuring out the most effective ways to spend their money. "Just spending money and doing the wrong things, won't help," he said.

Gates' speech and the foundation's grant announcement comes one day after the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization warned in a report that world hunger is getting worse, and international aid for agriculture continues to plummet.

Asia and the Pacific have the largest number of hungry people -- 642 million -- followed by sub-Saharan Africa with 265 million. Twenty countries in Africa require emergency food assistance.

The Gates Foundation sees agriculture as the most effective lever against poverty, said Roy Steiner, deputy director of agriculture development, in a recent interview.

"If you care about the poor, you've got to care about agriculture," he said.

Also announced October 15 was a $10 million grant to create educational radio shows to reach farmers in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Mali, Ghana and Tanzania during the next four years.

The foundation is putting $12 million in a program to feed school children that would also benefit small farmers. It likely would work in a way similar to the way surplus food programs redistribute dairy products and other food to the poor in the United States.

Another $4.7 million will go toward training an army of community information people, who don't need to be experts, but will have access by cell phone to people who will be able to answer any questions a local farmer might have.

Chicago Tribune