June 12, 2007
by David Dickson
Director, SciDev.Net
Building public support for
genetically modified crops in sub-Saharan Africa means
developing a homegrown solution to the region's own needs.
This week representatives from African countries will gather in
Johannesburg, South Africa, for Agricultural Science Week. Many
will be asking how their governments can respond to the pressure
from large parts of their agricultural communities to
commercialise genetically modified (GM) crops on one side, and
the large sectors of their voting publics against GM on the
other.
At one level, the decision seems straightforward. Scientific
achievements in GM plant breeding over the past two decades have
produced a range of new crops that can increase farmers'
productivity while reducing their production costs — for
example, by substantially lessening the needs for fertilisers
and insecticides.
But at the same time, GM technology has not been around long
enough for all its side effects to be understood. For critics of
the technology, the worrying possibilities of what might happen
were the technology to get out of control — however remote — is
sufficient reason to halt development until more is known.
Put in these terms, the political challenge is familiar. A new
technology needs an effective regulatory regime that allows its
potential to be harnessed safely, while potential side effects
are closely monitored.
Indeed, as highlighted in our regional spotlight on agricultural
technology published this week, implementing such biosafety
regimes is now a priority across Africa (see Agri-biotech in
sub-Saharan Africa).
A groundswell of opposition
But if the challenge is familiar, why has it taken so long to
put solutions into place? Partly this is because scientific
uncertainty remains over what the side effects are likely to be.
But, more importantly, a groundswell of opposition from vocal
critics has exploited this uncertainty to place governments on
the defensive, reluctant to move forward for fear of alienating
voters.
Such opposition needs to be taken seriously. One response is to
demonstrate that governments are adequately informed about the
potential risks of GM technologies before making decisions on
biosafety regulations. Here the scientific community — both
individual scientists and institutions such as scientific
academies — can help.
Governments must also ensure that their electorates are
sufficiently informed about both the potential benefits and
risks of GM technologies. Information campaigns — in which
journalists have a role to play through sound reporting — will
not necessarily endorse GM crops. They will, however, increase
the chances that political decisions come out of
scientifically-based arguments, rather than unfounded
speculation.
A political agenda?
Yet as European governments have discovered, neither a pledge to
evidence-based decision making, nor the organisation of
campaigns promoting public understanding of biotechnology are
sufficient. Both ignore the extent to which many critics have a
political agenda — namely a desire to oppose not so much GM
technology itself but the multinational corporations promoting
it.
To this, there is no straightforward reply. The critics
legitimately argue that corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta
control many key GM technologies. Such corporations' primary
loyalty is to their shareholders, not their customers.
But a large proportion of work on GM crops also comes from the
public sector, through international agricultural research
centres, for example.
Still, this has done little to soothe the public perception —
which some politicians have been quick to seize on — that
commercialising GM crops in a country opens up its farmers to
exploitation by foreign interests.
A homegrown industry
There is only one appropriate long-term response to this
argument. African countries — like others in the developing
world — must develop the scientific and technological capacity
to ensure that biotechnology meets their own needs, on their own
terms.
This means building programmes that address the potential of GM
technology to enhance the 'orphan crops' often neglected by
foreign corporations. Such crops, including cassava, pigeon pea
and sorghum are already under development, but more support is
needed, particularly in the regulatory arena.
Political leaders must acknowledge that biotechnology can become
a homegrown industry in Africa — and they must be willing to
commit the necessary resources. This should include fewer
incentives for foreign companies to set up shop, and greater
investment in scientific infrastructure and capacity building
efforts including support for universities and regional research
networks.
A step in this direction was taken in January when African Union
leaders endorsed a 20-year 'Freedom to Innovate' biotechnology
plan. But endorsing a plan is one thing, putting it into effect
is another. Until that happens, genetic modification will
continue to be seen as a Northern technology meeting
predominantly Northern interests — and opposition will continue
to flourish. |
|