[ad_1]
Recent exchanges on Ethiopia’s acceptance of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting USDA report praising the steps our country has taken remain informative. My understanding of the debates around genetically modified food suggests that clear explanations of its utility ignore the muddy footprints and messy stories of technology, while voices of vilification and general rejection tend to thrive more on emotional appeal than in rigorous science. Let’s start with the basics.
The 21st century is said to be the century of biology and ecology. Therefore, for Ethiopia, as one of the world’s top 50 biodiversity hubs, it is better to capitalize than understand and develop its crop and animal varieties and fulfill its long-standing potential of being Africa’s breadbasket. Ethiopia is one of the few centers where domestication of crops was practiced at the dawn of agriculture and the country has contributed to the world collection of arable species, such as crops like Teff, coffee, enset sorghum, millet, etc. This means that our farmers are not new to genetic modification of organisms, as each domestication effort involves selective breeding and recombination of desired characteristics. We have also adopted several species of foreign plants (corn, wheat, barley, tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, etc.), some of them just a few centuries ago, without much regard for their effects on our indigenous species.
Despite these impressive records, our farming system remained firmly rooted in its ancient practices that suffer from abysmal efficiency and very poor productivity. As a result, Ethiopia remains a net importer of crops for both human consumption and its expanding industries, and there seems to be no natural end to this depressing trend. The consequence is not only a reduction of the profit base for many of the industries, but also the misuse of the scarce hard currency obtained from the export of some raw materials with all the negative impacts on our ability to import more useful technologies.
Ironically, Ethiopia has no shortage of arable / irrigable land or a population capable or willing to participate in modern agricultural practices. In fact, Ethiopia’s farming community is estimated to exceed 80% of the population, but cannot adequately feed itself, much less supply raw materials for the manufacturing sector. Smallholder production in Ethiopia is unable to keep up with population growth, as tens of millions of our population still depend on food distribution each year and many more live in precarious situations. Therefore, it is pertinent that the country become self-sufficient at least to feed the population with all possible means. And, this is not a very difficult task given the scale of its arable land and the disproportionately large population whose livelihood depends on agriculture.
The most relevant question is, therefore, how to end this absurd and persistent tragedy without drastically affecting the livelihood of our farmers and disrupting the balance of biodiversity. For a very long period of time, Ethiopia lacked the capacity to introduce mechanized agriculture and other relevant agricultural technologies. Furthermore, it lagged far behind many (African) countries in developing its relevant policies and practices regarding the application of plant genetic engineering technology. Arguably the most futile effort by the Ethiopian government in the past decade has been the introduction of Biosecurity Proclamation No. 655/2009. This proclamation may be promulgated as a genuine effort to protect local farmers and the country’s agricultural sector from the control of some foreign biotech industries and create formidable protection against the potential consequences of the unintended consequences of the release of GM crops . However, it is clear from the outset that the proclamation lacked adequate scrutiny by all relevant stakeholders, not least representatives of farmers or experts from agricultural research centers in the country. Furthermore, it failed to recognize the potential of research and innovation in local agrobiotechnology and failed to realize the rapidly changing focus of the debate and policy changes surrounding this emerging technology worldwide. Therefore, our Biosecurity Proclamation No. 655/2009 was, by international standards, relatively out of date as soon as it was hastily approved by parliament (hence the justification for a subsequent amendment such as Proclamation No. 896/2015).
It is unclear why modern genetically modified organisms are so divisive and treated as highly toxic materials that they must be feared and avoided at all costs. A rigorous analysis carried out by scientific institutions such as the Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the US National Academy of Sciences. USA It has shown that such organisms are at least as safe as their counterparts produced by conventional breeding techniques. For example, GM cotton that Ethiopia is said to have started growing is the widely known Bt variety. In summary, Bt is short for Bacillus thuringiensis, a species of bacteria that occurs naturally in the soil and produces highly specific insecticidal proteins. This bacterium has been used, in one form or another, as the most effective, natural and ecological bioinsecticide for more than half a century. Bt spray is currently the world’s dominant bioinsecticide and is licensed for use even by organic farmers around the world. Therefore, we are talking about a well characterized gene for a bacterium (which could well be living in our soils all the time). Plants expressing this gene have been tested for over two decades in various countries and in a wide range of ecological settings for the properties for which they have been designed, with no confirmed case of harmful effects such as food or feed.
I suspect that Ethiopia has been tricked or pressured into adopting an overly cautious interpretation of the precautionary principle, as was the case in the past in some EU countries. In my opinion, the EU and its policies on genetically modified products (although they are as progressive as they currently are) cannot be a good initiative for Ethiopia. On the one hand, agricultural practices in the EU are already highly productive, even without the need for the introduction of GMOs. Furthermore, the large proportion of the population involved in the agricultural sector in Ethiopia means that unreasonable restrictions on agricultural biotechnology can have far-reaching consequences. For Ethiopia, the best place to look for inspiration is in other developing countries around the world, in Latin America, Asia, and on the continent of Africa, as our capabilities and needs are likely to be similar.
India, for example, started growing Bt cotton commercially in 2002 and currently around 25% of its agricultural land is covered with this variety, the highest proportion in the world. On our continent, South Africa is a pioneer in granting permits for the commercial cultivation of GM crops, for genetically modified cotton and corn, since 1997. Egypt has been commercially cultivating Bt corn hybrids since 2008, using seeds obtained from South Africa (since then cultivation has been suspended due to the lack of adequate biosecurity laws and other local problems). Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon and our neighboring countries, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique have tried and / or adopted the cultivation of transgenic crops. In addition, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda are carrying out various genetic modifications on the cassava plant, a staple crop for more than 500 million people worldwide. It is false, to say the least, to affirm that all these countries are threatened or deceived to accept this technology to the detriment of the well-being of their population and ecosystems.
Ethiopia, on the other hand, despite having several experienced agricultural research institutions, is losing itself too long in developing its genetic research capacity and utilizing available biotechnologies, especially compared to many of these African countries. As a comment on this site made clear, the Ethiopian team that negotiated the Cartagena Protocol, led by Dr. Tewolde-Birhan Gebre-Egziabher, played a key role in formulating a strong African position and became the representative de facto of the continent. This had been appreciated and recognized by various African countries at the time. Whether this fact can make Ethiopia assume a “pan-Africanist leadership position on environmental issues” is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is important is the fact that the Cartagena Protocol is primarily aimed at providing “an adequate level of protection” to global biodiversity through strict control over “transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. ” What it is not is a total ban on the development, testing or use of genetically modified organisms for food or feed. Furthermore, several of the major African countries have advanced and realized that the application of GM crops, GM technology and genetic engineering knowledge could have a transformative effect on parts of their economies, provided that these are supported by strong regime monitoring. As a result, and contrary to its supposed pan-African leadership, Ethiopia is currently an outlier in the continent when it comes to exploring this powerful technology that can potentially transform the living standards of millions of people. Many of the countries that are said to hesitate to accept this agricultural biotechnology lack the capacity to adapt and manage it or the real need for a rapid transformation of their agricultural practices (they are self-sufficient or do not have an industrial base to supply to or both). In other words, we might well have once been the continent’s leading voice against genetically modified organisms, but it has become apparent that we are leading the wrong league and it is not where we belong, it is unbecoming of our great nation.
What Ethiopia urgently needs is a dynamic regulatory system and strong scientific capacity for the evaluation, authorization and monitoring of imported GM crops. You also need to rebuild and expand your core research capabilities with the goal of developing local GM species using state-of-the-art methodology. Public-private biotechnology associations should be encouraged to work on genetic identification and improvement even in our own indigenous plant and animal species. Furthermore, since we are negotiating accession to the World Trade Organization, it is the most relevant time to substantially revise or repeal Biosecurity Proclamation No. 655/2009 (including its latest incarnation, Proclamation No. 896/2015) and to rationalize other laws in accordance with international standards.
For this writer, the question is not why Ethiopia allowed the commercial cultivation of Bt cotton and authorized a confined field trial of Bt corn. It is if he carried out a thorough analysis of the existing problems in the sector and identified the effectiveness of these particular strains of genetically modified crops as profitable and sustainable solutions. It is not about “reinventing the wheel”, but rather identifying our desirable goals and requirements, learning from top candidates, and applying an appropriate level of precautionary principles. Temporary setbacks in Burkina Faso, Africa’s largest cotton producer at one point, and some regions in India show that the process of introducing GM crops is far from a “turnkey” situation. It requires the collaboration of laboratory scientists, policy makers, market leaders, and farmers (end users) to identify the required crop characteristics and quality that are appropriate to the specific condition of the locality.
In conclusion, genetic modification agricultural technology has sufficiently demonstrated its value after more than two decades of commercial application and this is reflected in its widespread global adoption.
Therefore, the excessive hesitation of its acceptance by Ethiopia and the activists who support this position is unjustifiable, be it social, economic or, more importantly, scientifically.
Main image: Children on a farm in Hawzen, Tigray region. Ethiopia Observer Archive.
