By David Fig
Africa must not let multinational corporations and international
donors dictate its biotechnology agenda, says David Fig.
Africa is rapidly becoming a focal point for multinational crop and
chemical corporations clearing the way for the extended uptake of their
products and technologies. In particular, African governments are facing
enormous pressure to endorse and adopt genetically modified (GM) crops.

Organisations like the Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa -
bankrolled by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations - are partly to blame
through their heavy investment in infrastructure aimed at supporting the
development and distribution of GM crops and seeds.

But the African Union (AU) itself is now also encouraging the adoption
of GM technology. Working in tandem with its development wing, the New
Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the AU's High Level Panel on
Modern Biotechnology is soon to release a Freedom to Innovate plan - the
clearest expression yet of the trend to back this controversial and risky
technology. And it does so uncritically, rather than taking a more rational
precautionary position that would safeguard Africa's rich biodiversity and
agriculture.

The AU is also engaged in efforts to revise the carefully crafted
African Model Law on Biosafety, which outlines the biosafety provisions
necessary for African environmental conditions.

The revisions emanate from those seeking to make the biosafety content
less stringent, placing Africa under even more pressure to conform to the
needs of the gene corporations.

Saying no to the GM bandwagon

Support for GM technology, though, is by no means universal across the
continent. The AU's efforts in shaping the Freedom to Innovate plan and
model law contrast with the leadership role that the Africa Group took in
developing the Cartagena Protocol to ensure more stringent biosafety
precautions.

Indeed, a number of African governments and civil society
organisations are increasingly speaking out against the pressures from gene
companies - and the foundations that back them - to adopt their
technologies.

For example Angola, Sudan and Zambia have resisted pressure to accept
GM food aid, while nongovernmental groups such as the African Biodiversity
Network, based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, defend community and farmers'
rights to reject GM seed. At one stage Burkina Faso implemented a moratorium
on the planting of GM crops.

The Freedom to Innovate document does little justice to the debate
raging around Africa. Instead it seeks to institutionalise the pro-GM
position of larger countries like Nigeria and South Africa for the entire
continent.

Offering unbiased advice

There is no question that Africa needs technology to develop. But it
must be appropriate to a country's chosen path of development.

New technologies aimed at development must be evaluated in depth by,
among others, scientists with no vested interests.

Natural scientists must assess GM technology's likely impacts on both
the environment and human and animal health. Social scientists must also
examine the potential socio-economic consequences of such innovation - such
as impacts on local food security, trade or indebtedness. Stakeholders,
including those who safeguard traditional knowledge, could further enrich
such assessment by indicating proven alternatives.

This model of technological assessment could serve Africa very well.
It could enable governments to formulate appropriate policies and
development priorities.

Most importantly, if a technology is found to be questionable or
negative in terms of its impacts - or if there are no clear development
benefits to be derived from its adoption - a precautionary mechanism must
exist that can delay and carefully regulate its introduction.

The freedom to choose

The Freedom to Innovate plan tries to advocate the idea that all
biotechnology benefits Africa and fails to analyse the risks attached to
their adoption. While some aspects of modern biotechnology might prove
useful in African agriculture, this does not mean that one aspect of this -
GM crops - can increase continental food security and farmer prosperity.

GM technology forces Africa into high-input, chemical-dependent
agriculture which impacts on biodiversity and creates debt burdens for small
farmers.

In addition, the regulatory steps required for control of GM crops are
so demanding of resources that, even when other budgetary areas relating to
food security may need more pressing attention, Africa is forced to
prioritise their set up.

Gene corporations, together with the scientists that work for them,
have invested a lot of time, effort and money in developing GM crops. Not
surprisingly, they are the ones who propound the idea that transgenic crops
can rescue Africa from poverty and underdevelopment.

But Africa must not let itself be bullied into accepting a technology
that has yet to prove itself as appropriate for solving the continent's
hunger problems. The AU's role should be one of providing governments with
well-reasoned technological evaluation, rather than acting as a proxy for
promoting a specific industry's commercial needs.

David Fig is an independent environmental policy analyst based in
Johannesburg, and a trustee of Biowatch South Africa.


[www.scidev.net]