|
June 27, 2007
Source:
SciDev.Net
by Jennifer Thomson*
Africa must be free to explore the potential of agricultural
biotechnology without undue European influence, says Jennifer
Thomson.
African Union leaders took an important step in acknowledging
the potential of biotechnology to help agricultural development
earlier this year when they endorsed the Freedom to Innovate
plan. The plan emphasises the need for Africa to find a unified
approach to agricultural biotechnology research and biosafety
regulation.
But while the plan represents enthusiasm for biotechnology at
the continent's highest levels, Africa's ability to effectively
implement it on the ground remains to be seen. Much will rely on
how national governments and their electorates perceive key
technologies or products, such as genetically modified (GM)
crops.
Many Africans — scientists, politicians and farmers alike —
recognise the need to support any technology that will help feed
the continent's poor. But in Europe people often throw their
hands up in horror at the idea of growing or consuming GM crops.
Europe should not pontificate on what is good or bad for
Africans — we can do this for ourselves.
Still, many African leaders unfortunately look to Europe for
advice, as this is where our greatest export markets lie. When
they see Europe turning its back on GM crops they can assume
there must be something seriously wrong with them. What
Europeans say matters on our continent — they should think
carefully before speaking out against GM crops.
Notches on the GM belt
GM crops have already started to make a difference in securing
food supplies and alleviating poverty across Africa. Engineering
key crops to be insect or virus resistant has led to a decreased
use of agrochemicals, increased yields and higher returns — for
commercial farmers and smallholders alike.
Maize is one of the most important sources of calories for
Africa's poor, as well as being a key crop for cattle feed. But
it is susceptible to damage from parasitic weeds like Striga,
viruses such as the maize streak virus (MSV) and pests —
stem-boring insects cause significant yield losses of 15–40 per
cent in Africa and can even result in total crop failure if
conditions favour infestation.
Biotechnology can help insure against such losses. In South
Africa, ongoing glasshouse trials for maize engineered to resist
MSV have provided encouraging results for creating commercial
varieties.
Similarly, field trials in Kenya using a non-GM variety of maize
resistant to the herbicide imazapyr — effective against Striga —
have proven very successful.
Striga infests as much as 40 million hectares of smallholder
farmland in sub-Saharan Africa, affecting the livelihoods of
over 100 million people and causing annual crop losses estimated
to be worth US$1 billion. The weed attacks crop roots and is
almost impossible to remove through conventional weeding
techniques.
Coating maize seeds in imazapyr, though, is an effective way of
killing the weed without impacting the crop's health. The Kenyan
field trials have reported yield increases of 38–82 per cent
compared with traditional varieties.
Commercial farmers planting insect-resistant GM maize in South
Africa have also seen an increase in their yields. This has led
to rising incomes — with net gains ranging from US$24 per
hectare in dryland areas to US$143 in irrigated regions —
despite the higher costs associated with using GM seeds.
Success on the small scale?
Could small-scale farmers also benefit from planting GM maize
for home consumption? In theory, GM maize could help small-scale
farmers ensure a steady food supply for themselves while
simultaneously increasing yields and providing their families
with a previously unavailable source of income.
But with such a large difference in price — GM seeds cost $83
per kilogram compared with $52 per kilogram for conventional
seeds — the answer is probably no, unless the farmers already
buy non-GM hybrid seeds from seed companies each year.
Still, only ten per cent of small-scale farmers currently use
hybrid seeds across Africa as a whole, although the figure is
much higher for some individual countries — 85 per cent in
Kenya, 65 per cent in Zambia and 91 per cent in Zimbabwe.
Only time will tell if the benefits associated with higher
yields overcome the higher cost of GM seeds for small-scale as
well as commercial farmers.
In the case of cotton, the benefits of GM varieties to
small-scale farmers are more obvious. Insect attack is one of
the major constraints to cotton cultivation worldwide, with
yield losses worth an estimated US$5 billion annually.
Approximately 25 per cent of all insecticides used in
agriculture are applied to cotton — more than any other crop. In
some Central and West African countries, this figure can reach
staggering levels — as high as 80 per cent.
UK scientists from the University of Reading have been weighing
the economic costs and benefits of insect-resistant Bt cotton in
South Africa for a number of years. Seeds for this crop were
commercially released in 1997 and have since been extensively
used in KwaZulu-Natal province where, by 2001, 90 per cent of
all farmers were growing GM cotton.
Many of the traditional insecticides used here are highly toxic.
By switching to GM cotton, small-scale farmers in the region
have lowered risks to their own health and decreased the levels
of chemical insecticides entering the local environment.
Smallholder farmers in this region have also received a 77 per
cent higher return on GM cotton.
An African action plan
The UK scientists found that, in general, the smaller the farm,
the greater the benefits in terms of higher income received.
But, as the authors note, GM cotton is not a silver bullet that
can solve poverty among these farmers overnight. Efforts must be
made to improve soil conditions, road and rail infrastructure,
and educate farmers to help them implement best agricultural
practices.
Still, GM technology holds much promise for improving the lot of
African small-scale and commercial farmers alike. The
continent's leaders should be applauded for their recognition of
this potential in their endorsement of the Freedom to Innovate
plan. But now they must be given the freedom to implement the
plan without fear of undue criticism from European sceptics.
* Jennifer Thomson is a professor of microbiology at the
University of Cape Town in South Africa. |
|
