Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 4 • Number 9 • 14th May 2004
AFRICA GMO UPDATE: NIGERIA, GM FOOD AID, BOTSWANA
AFRICA GMO UPDATE: NIGERIA, GM FOOD AID, BOTSWANA
A number of recent developments have highlighted the serious challenges that African countries continue to face with regard to the adoption of biotechnology on the continent. While some countries such as Nigeria are spearheading their way into developing this sector, other governments and groups are hesitant. Safety, health, food security, the environment, regulatory needs and NGO concerns are among the considerations governments need to take into account in decisions on whether and how to embrace such technologies.
Nigerian government supports biotechnology initiative
In a Memorandum of Understanding signed on 3 May, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) promised to provide US$ 2.1 million (about N380 million) for three years to support the Nigeria Agriculture Biotechnology Project (NABP) and the West African Biotechnology Network (WABNET). The Nigerian government, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and USAID, jointly support this biotechnology initiative. According to Nigerian Science and Technology Minister, Professor Turner Isoun, the project will encourage economic growth and sustainable use of natural resources, and enhance health, environmental, industrial and agricultural development in the African sub-region. Rick Roberts, Charge D’Affaires at the US embassy in Nigeria, also highlighted benefits for Nigeria: "The yield of both cowpea and cassava crops could be more than doubled by developing varieties that are resistant to insect pests and plant diseases." However, Environmental Rights Action of Nigeria (ERAN), the Nigerian branch of Friends of the Earth International, criticised this project as "neo-colonial", claiming that it threatens to erode food sovereignty and deprive Nigerians of the right to safe food. "[Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] have potential negative environmental, economical, cultural, ethical, political and health impacts," stated Doifie Ola, spokesperson for ERAN. He added that Africa was becoming a dumping ground for products rejected elsewhere, with the biotechnology industry and governments "pushing" such products into Africa with no regard for biosafety and African livelihoods.
African NGOs voice concern to food aid donors
On 4 May, over 60 NGOs from 15 African countries sent a letter to the World Food Programme (WFP) and USAID, expressing concerns that Angola and Sudan were denied the right to choose whether or not to accept GM food aid. According to the NGOs, inappropriate pressure had been placed on governments to lift restrictions on GM food aid. Following recommendations by the Southern African Development Community’s advisory committee on biotechnology and biosafety, Angola had made the import of GM food aid conditional on the grain being milled prior to arrival (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 2 April 2004). The NGOs allege that the WFP had warned Angola of decreases in food aid if such insistence continued. The WFP, responding to the letter, denied this. "We informed the government of Angola that if they insist all GM food must be milled it would delay the delivery process because Angola does not have the capacity to mill large quantities of grain… Milling would have to be done overseas and we would have to find someone to pay for it," commented Michael Huggins, Southern Africa regional spokesperson for the WFP. Moreover, the NGOs claim that USAID has entirely cut off food aid to Sudan in response to demands by the African country for food aid to be certified as GM-free. Huggins rejected these allegations, noting that "the US government has just donated 33,000 metric tonnes of food to the country". In a 4 May report, Earthlife Africa, ERA, GRAIN and SafeAge point to non-GM alternatives at national, regional and international levels, which donors should make available to Sudan and Angola.
Botswana GM Product Regulation: Uphill Battle?
A workshop organised on 28 April by the Ministry of Agriculture in Botswana, revealed that coming up with a framework for regulating GMOs might be a daunting task. Representatives from the Biotechnology Alliance of Namibia — one of the countries at an advanced stage of framework formulation — noted that setting up the framework often required trial and error. Problems cited at the workshop included: revision of current laws; whether new import and trade legislation is needed; and fragmented controls scattered in different ministries across the country. Other participants noted difficulties in monitoring food that passes the borders, as the need for food was large in a continent that often experienced severe food shortage and famine. While citing the opportunities presented by GM crops such as increased sustainable yield, Dr. Mmasera Manthe-Tsuaneng, the national Biosafety Coordinator for Botswana, also explained the threats: "Socio-economic consequences are potentially severe like displacement of cash crops and the disruption of small scale farming systems that are prevalent in developing countries like Botswana." Botswana has ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which requires countries to implement necessary biosafety frameworks.
"Africa GM Food Aid Claims are ‘Rubbish’," AGBIOVIEW NEWSLETTER, 10 May 2004; "USAID to Spend N400m On Nigeria Biotechnology Development," THIS DAY, 4 May 2004; "Nigeria poised for biotech take-off," TIMES OF NIGERIA, 10 May 2004; "Regulation of GMO products may prove difficult," MMEGI/THE REPORTER, 29 April 2004; "NGOs accuse donors over UN food aid," BUSINESS DAY, 5 May 2004; "Nigeria; Group Warns on Genetically Modified Crops," THIS DAY, 9 May 2004.