By Calestous Juma

Leaders at the Group of Eight industrialized nations' summit in Hokkaido
next month need to take strong measures to promote cooperation in using
biotechnology to address Africa's food challenges.
At present there is resistance from Europe, and even Japan is dragging its
feet on this vital issue.

Critics often argue that using modern biotechnology in African agriculture
would harm farmers, wreck the environment and expose consumers to unknown
risks. But by failing to adopt biotechnology, Africa puts its poor
populations at greater risk of starvation. Without substantial investment in
biotechnology to address critical challenges such as drought, Africa will
continue to experience food deficits.

The G8 summit should encourage Africa and its partners to design new models
of cooperation that involve partnerships between government, industry and
academia. An example of such creative institutional arrangements is the
Water Efficient Maize for Africa initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation.

The aim of the $47 million grant to the African Agricultural Technology
Foundation (AATF) is to develop drought-tolerant and royalty-free maize
varieties for Africa. It will use marker-assisted technology and other
biotechnologies. The first drought-tolerant variety will be available in
seven years.

Critics argue that intellectual property rights prevent African countries
from obtaining technologies to meet basic needs. But new drought-tolerance
techniques have already been licensed to AATF without charge. They can be
developed, tested and distributed to small-scale African farmers without
charge.

Under this novel arrangement, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT) avails itself of conventionally developed drought-tolerant,
high-yielding maize varieties suited to African conditions. In addition to
CIMMYT's expertise, Monsanto will offer proprietary genetic material and
advanced breeding techniques.

Monsanto and BASF will offer royalty-free, drought-tolerant genes arising
from their collaboration. Participating countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania
and South Africa) will provide additional expertise available in farmers'
groups and local companies.

Considerable effort has gone into forging partnerships that let African
countries enter into genuine partnership with companies in industrialized
countries as envisaged in the "Freedom to Innovate" report commissioned by
the African Union and the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development.

This partnership illustrates the potential for using new technologies to
address the world's just causes. Numerous institutions around the world
could play a key role in improving African agriculture, but persistent
criticism and limited political leadership in the industrialized world
continue to undermine international cooperation in the field.

For example, pathbreaking research of relevance into Africa's needs is
carried out at the Kihara Institute for Biological Research at Yokohama City
University. This research can help Africa enhance the nutritional content of
indigenous crops and find plant-based remedies for a variety of tropical
diseases. Such institutions could work more closely with the private sector.

This work is hindered by advocacy groups in industrialized countries who
purport to speak for developing countries. Some of these groups receive
government funding that is used to slow down technical progress in African
countries.

At least the Luddites of 17th-century England professed a clear economic
ideology to protect their local industries. Modern critics of biotechnology
seem to show little interest in the welfare of the people they claim to be
protecting.

Although the safety of biotechnology products continues to be a major
concern for African countries, the capacity needed to ensure safety comes
from efforts to develop the technology. It would be futile to develop the
capacity to assess the safety of new products when no capacity exists to
develop such products.

This is not to deny the importance of protecting the environment and
consumers against unintended harm. Maximization of the benefits of new
technologies must be balanced with the reduction of risks.

The demand that products be proven safe before commercialization, however,
has denied Africa a crucial chance to learn to use the technology and gain a
better understanding of its impact.

While the claims about risks need to be addressed, they no longer carry the
same stigma worldwide. South America and Asia have in many cases leapfrogged
into the genomics age through the adoption of biotechnology while its use in
Africa remains largely marginal.

Advances in the use of biotechnology in South Africa and China, for example,
show that safety measures co-evolve with the development of the technology.
We should not blindly demand proof of safety as a prerequisite for using new
technology. Such demands are ploys used to stall the adoption of new
technologies by other vested interests.

Failure to adopt these technologies is one of the gravest risks facing poor
countries. The G8 nations must show leadership in supporting new
biotechnology partnerships with African countries. Dragging their feet will
only prolong human misery.

Calestous Juma is a professor at Harvard Kennedy School and a senior
visiting professor at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced
Studies, Yokohama. He co-chaired the African Union's High-Level Panel on
Modern Biotechnology. This article is based on his remarks at the G8
Dialogue organized in May by United Nations University, Tokyo.
www.checkbiotech.org