|
June 16, 2008
By Wagdy Sawahel for
Intellectual Property Watch
With Egypt’s recent approval of
the cultivation and commercialisation of a pest-resistant corn
variety that marked the first legal introduction of genetically
modified crops into the Arab world, the Egyptian scientific
community is having mixed reactions.
The approval of a genetically modified crop variety owned by
biotechnology company Monsanto was based on a recommendation
made by the Egyptian National Biosafety Committee and Seed
Registration Committee as a result of experimental field trials.
These trials revealed that the infestation of three corn borers
- pests that can destroy a corn crop - was “negligible or
completely prevented in Bt plants throughout the whole season
and the different times of sowing dates.” Report results
available here.
The approval is detailed in a 16 April report of the Global
Agriculture Information Network published by the US Department
of Agriculture,
available here [PDF].
Called Ajeeb-YG, the pest-resistant corn variety was produced by
crossing Monsanto YieldGard Bt Insect Resistant Corn (MON 810)
with an Egyptian maize variety called Ajeeb. It will be
distributed this month to Egyptian farmers by Cairo-based
company Fine Seeds International.
As a result, the Egyptian scientific community has had mixed
reactions, some expressing concerns over health, environmental,
socioeconomic, political and ownership-related issues.
Magdy Massoud of the plant protection department of the faculty
of agriculture at the University of Alexandria in Egypt, who was
involved in carrying out the experimental field trials, told
Intellectual Property Watch: “All studies prove the importance
of Bt corn for Egypt, where it increase yield and reduce the use
of chemical insecticides and maintains the role of the
beneficial natural enemies as it only harms the targeted
borers.”
But Nagib Nassar, Egyptian professor of genetics and plant
breeding at University of Brazil, told Intellectual Property
Watch, “At the end of the day what was originally an Egyptian
variety will become not only registered in Egypt but owned by
Monsanto, and Egyptian scientists will end up only making the
backcrossing as the ancient Egyptian was doing.”
GM Plants - from Partnership to Ownership?
This means, said Tarek Saif, biotechnologist at Egypt’s National
Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Egypt’s collaboration
with Monsanto started with the word “partnership” to pave the
way for public acceptance of GM plant and ended with “ownership”
for Monsanto.
“How did an Egyptian variety become owned by Monsanto just as a
result of crossing it with its line?” Saif asked.
Saif said that at present Monsanto is developing insect
resistant long-staple GM cotton by crossing Egyptian elite
germplasm with Monsanto’s Bollgard II.
“If this so-called ‘partnership’ is transformed into ‘ownership’
as in the case of Bt corn, the socioeconomic impact on Egypt
will be severe as Egyptian cotton is known as one of the world’s
finest quality and our most important agricultural export.”
But Mohammad Taeb, technology transfer expert and former
coordinator of the research and human capacity development
programme at the Institute of Advanced Studies at the
Japan-based United Nations University said, “Activities of the
private sector in producing and cultivating GM crops is
unavoidable and perhaps necessary. However, what makes the issue
controversial in developing countries is the lack of a legal and
regulatory framework for the operation of GM-producing
companies.”
Taeb added that “partnership is an important mechanism of
technology transfer from developed to developing countries.” But
to capture the opportunity, he said, “developing countries
require a minimum institutional capability to benefit from
partnerships, otherwise companies come and reap commercial
benefits in developing countries and give nothing in return.”
Taeb pointed out that “the question to be raised is whether
Egypt is organised enough to benefit from this partnership with
Monsanto or not. If it is going to benefit, how will that
happen, and who are the players?”
“The ownership of corn or cotton GM crops per se is not an
important matter because you cannot maintain the variety for
indefinite time,” Taeb said. “The varietals’ purity will
degenerate in time unless you have access to the parents and
could reconstitute the original genetic configuration.”
Therefore, he said, “What matters here most is the technical
know-how that is used in making the GM corn or cotton. If that
technical know-how is transferred to Egypt, the presence of
Monsanto would be welcomed.”
“But what I have seen in real world is the inability of
developing countries to absorb advanced technology brought by
foreign firms which again goes back to the issue of
institutional capacity in developing countries to manage
technology transfer,” Taeb concluded.
Socioeconomic Impact of GM Plants on Small Farmers
Nassar said that this Bt corn variety will “bear a heavy
economic cost on the shoulder of small farmer,” adding, “It
remains to be seen what is the content of the contract called
“Technology Use Agreement (TUA)” which farmers will have to sign
and what legal actions and fines waiting for them if they
violate the contract?”
Some TUAs stipulate that farmers cannot save seed for replanting
and farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else.
Moreover, Nassar added, “poor farmers will be obligated to
destroy any seed for future plantation. They must buy from the
multinational [company] new seed for plantation. When farmers
destroy seed, they destroy in the meantime genetic variability
which may benefit future plantation.
Nassar expected that the reproduction of corn seeds at the
Egyptian village level will be disrupted leading to the broken
of the agricultural cycle, which enables farmers to store their
seeds and plant them to reap the next harvest.
Nassar added, “Egyptian small and poor farmers depend on
rotation as a way of natural fertilisation to their soil by
nitrogen fixation [caused by bacteria]. This will not be
possible in future. Simply because toxin produced by the Bt
plant, mixed with soil will kill nitrogen fixing bacteria”
Political, Environmental and Health Impact
Saif warned of the political impact of the cultivation and
commercialisation of a Bt corn variety in Egypt.
“Egyptian corn farmers will become dependent on foreign
companies for their corn seed supply and for the costly
fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide which might destroy their
autonomy and control of seed, their livelihoods and cultural
traditions,” Saif told Intellectual Property Watch.
Nassar said, “What may be more alarming is the local effect of
this Bt maize plant on bees and wildlife, especially in a heavy
density of humanity, plants and animals in Nile delta as well as
the regional effect of contaminating seeds of neighbouring
countries which still prohibit Bt corn, such as Sudan, Ethiopia,
Zambia and others.”
Mohamed El-Defrawy, professor of population genetics at faculty
of agriculture of Assuit University in Egypt told Intellectual
Property Watch, “I am of the fierce opponents of GM plants
release in Egypt as no one knows its consequences on
agricultural as well as wild populations.”
The Way Forward
To address the potential negative impacts of GM corn, Magdi
Tawfik Abdelhamid, plant biotechnologist at Cairo’s National
Research Centre, said: “Research on the different socioeconomic,
environmental, health and agronomic issues surrounding GM crops
must be done, and an in-depth assessment must be conducted of
the country’s agricultural food and rural development policies
and in particular, how GM plants benefit the poor as well as
programmes for awareness about GM crops among the public and
farmers in particular must be set up to ensure proper public
consultations.”
Abdelhamid added that Egypt needs to promote GM plant research
and development and to develop its own Bt maize using local
technology to protect its small-scale farmers.
“Biosafety measures in Egypt need to be strengthened by
approving the biosafety legislation which has not been presented
to Parliament yet,” Abdelhamid concluded.
Currently, GM plants are regulated in Egypt by a framework
including ministerial decrees and the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety.
The 2002 Egyptian law on the protection of intellectual property
rights endorsed the patentability criteria as stipulated in the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Taeb said. But, he said
TRIPS gives freedom to international agro-industrial companies
to enter developing country seed markets and to acquire IP
rights on plant varieties.
Wagdy Sawahel may be reached at
info@ip-watch.ch. |
|
