http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/361/47258piracy.jpgIn this wide ranging Pambazuka News interview, Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center Biosafety speaks about biopiracy, which she calls "the last frontier", the Alliance for a Green Revolution and its impact on Africa, and food and agriculture as social justice justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: I am here with Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center for Biosafety (www.biosafetyafrica.net). Can you tell us about your organization?

MARIAM MAYET: We are based in Jo’burg and we have four main programs. We campaign against genetic engineering in food and agriculture. We campaign against bio-piracy particularly the theft of indigenous knowledge in the context of medicinal plants and new areas around marine bio prospecting.

We also work on the green revolution in Africa – and Agro-fuels. Basically we do a lot of cutting edge research, exposes of what multi-national companies are doing in Africa, and on the bio-tech industry. We look at the seed industry and where the GM-Agro fuels push is coming from. We work with a large network of other groups and communities.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little more about bio-piracy – and patenting systems?

MARIAM MAYET: Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies want to bring in new products to the market. They have to find the active ingredient to be able to produce a particular medicine (sometimes they stumble into things accidentally). But the way to get to the plant and the use of the plant is through local people. And when they come into our countries and they appropriate our knowledge and resources, without people’s consent, we call it theft or bio-piracy.

The last frontier of resources base is really our people’s knowledge in regards to medicinal plants and agriculture. And these are highly sought after. When a company finds a particular plant, and the useful properties in the plant they make a product from it, and then register a patent in regards to the use of that plant. And where they duplicate existing uses, we are able to challenge those patents.

For example, we found a company in Germany trying to patent two endemic species in South Africa and Lesotho but they are duplicating local uses. We were able to challenge this. So even in a European patenting system which is very neo-liberal and capitalist, it does not allow to register a patent over the use of something, if a community anywhere in the world has the same use. So we use the small margins to challenge bio-piracy. This was one case, but there are there are thousands of cases like this in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you give Pambazuka readers other examples of bio-piracy?

MARIAM MAYET: Yes. Last year we published a booklet called “Out of Africa: Mysteries of Benefit Sharing.” We published 36 cases of dubious acquisitions in Africa, such as theft of the people’s knowledge to produce skin whitening cosmetic by the cosmetic industry.

The hoodia gordonii, a hunger suppressing plant gives us the quintessential case of bio-piracy. This is where the knowledge of the San to stave off hunger when trekking through the Kalahari was appropriated by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa and passed onto Phytopharm. Phytopharm registered a patent claiming that there were no indigenous people in South Africa, that the San had died off. Stealing knowledge is extremely rife in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Let’s change gears a little and turn our attention to philanthropy, which Cecil Rhodes once called, philanthropy plus five-percent - which is to say that philanthropy paves way for profit making, or what others call the philanthropy-industrial complex. Can you talk a little about the role of Western philanthropy in Africa?

MARIAM MAYET: Philanthropy in Africa has some history especially in relation to the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller foundation has a much longer history than the Gates Foundation for example. Gordon Conway who became one of the presidents of the Rockefeller Foundation published a book called the New Green Revolution in 1999. The Green Revolution push we are seeing in Africa is really his brainchild. Their philanthropy has come in the context of pushing a very distinct corporate agenda – to open markets for US corporations. For example in Kenya the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in sponsoring Florence Wambugu’s sweet potato project because they want to open Africa up to GMOs. So if you give the impression that a genetically modified sweet potato can work because it is the poor person’s crop, there will be more willingness to accept GMO’s. So it is not philanthropy. It’s a form of investment, a corporatized agenda for resource extraction from Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: There was an expose in the LA Times [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,682... on the Bill Gates Foundation where it was found that the foundation invests money in companies and corporations that cause the very same problems it is trying to solve, companies such as Shell. So the philanthropy arm is trying to save the environment, while the investment arm is making profit from its destruction…

MARIAM MAYET: Exactly, the Rockefellers made their money from Exon, which later became Chevron – so they have old oil money - this wrecked a whole lot of havoc environmentally and in terms of human rights.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: And also the idea of telescopic philanthropy, a telescopic philanthropy that sees far but not what is under its feet – for example there are a lot problems in the United States amongst minority communities…

MARIAM MAYET: Yes, why didn’t they give money to Hurricane Katrina victims? Why do they feel they have to come and rescue Africa? We say that the Green Revolution is a white man’s dream for a black continent. And this dream… this savior mentality is very missionary, very colonial, and imperialistic – and yes they should leave us alone. If they take away all the developmental aid, if they take all the food aid, and the military aid – we would be like Cuba. We would struggle for a while but eventually we would find our way. We would build our own local economies and vibrancy because all these development aid is also an industry unto itself, and it feeds off itself.

Who are the world’s biggest agri-business players? Take Cargil, which owns shares in seed companies, buys the harvest from farmers and transports it all over the world – they are more powerful than some governments because they are in charge of the international prices of grains and trade in grains. You have to really understand this whole capitalist agri-business system in order to understand the logic of the green revolution.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: AGRA, according to its website, is and “African-led partnership working across the African continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger. AGRA programs develop practical solutions to significantly boost farm productivity and incomes for the poor while safeguarding the environment. AGRA advocates for policies that support its work across all key aspects of the African agricultural “value chain”—from seeds, soil health, and water to markets and agricultural education. AGRA is chaired by Kofi A. Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations”. They say that they are African led and now they have Kofi Annan who is serving as the chairman of AGRA – your response?

MARIAM MAYET: I think they are African followed because the vision was put in place by Gordon Conway from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation brought in the Bill-Melinda Gates foundation, then started to recruit willing and compliant Africans – the coup de grace was Kofi Annan.

If it was African led we would not be asking for consultation and transparency. It would be coming from our farmers, coming from the ground-up. What is African led, are the local struggles, where people are clearly saying this is what we want. Go to speak to the people affected and they will tell you what they want – that would be African led.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little bit about the packaging of AGRA? You have Kofi Annan, who has UN credentials, gentle spoken yet charismatic and Bill Gates who appears harmless. There is a lot of star power and money…

MARIAM MAYET: The things is the Green Revolution is a very a violent package because it puts powerful toxic chemicals into Africa. It displaces and destroys local knowledge and seeds. It favors those farmers who will be able to access the system, the more powerful farmers. This will divide the African peasantry.

AGRA also creates a lot of dependency and debt. It is violent. But the geeky sexy richest man who brought us wonderful technology, and gentle Kofi Annan – this is the savior face, our last hope. It is a very strategic move to push a very agri-business, corporatized market driven package – but it will fail in Africa because they do not understand Africa.

We are a very diverse people, we need local solutions that are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted – built on local knowledge and local seeds. You need to speak to people about how they adapt to harsh climates. To have a one-size fit all solution for Africa will be disastrous for us. Even in one country we have different eco-systems, different farming communities, different cultures, different eating habits.

We do not need to grow more foods for exports. We need to build on food sovereignty principles and give people equitable access to land, allocate the water fairly, support traditional farming methods, and create local vibrant economies, before we start exporting coffee, cocoa, and grow maize for export.

We are not saying that everyone must live on the land, or farm – we are talking about a local economy that is also integrated into the national economies. You cannot have two economies. We are talking about a vibrant whole.

I have to say that we are also unhappy with the agricultural systems in Africa and this is why we are saying – that we have to stop talking about food security because this perpetuates the existing paradigms. We have to tell our governments - what the hell are you doing? You have messed up badly, and left a vacuum for the philanthropist to walk in - and take over our countries, in a way.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: So there are ways in which the African governments have been absent in the debate completely…

MARIAM MAYET: None of our governments are going to say no to resources because they are corrupt, and despotic – we have had very few democracies but have huge class differences.

In terms of Agri-ecology we can do a lot of work with peasant movements but we have to always bear in mind that our struggle is a social justice struggle – and we need to hold our governments accountable.

We have to keep demanding from our governments the same things - We want justice in rural areas, equality for women, access to lands, support of traditional farming, we want you to protect our seeds, we do not want GMO’s, we want you to listen to farmers, we want you to build agricultural schools for them, and put money in research and development. I mean look at Nigeria. Once the oil industry took off, it mortgaged its oil to international oil companies, but it stopped developing its own agriculture.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What is at stake? Food systems?

MARIAM MAYAT: Food systems, social systems, our culture - the dynamics in the rural areas will change, there will be more debt, more dependency, and there will be a small commercial class of farmers.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can we talk a little bit more about food as social justice? What has the ANC government been doing in this regard?

MARIAM MAYAT: The ANC started off by giving up its many demands articulated in the Freedom charter and through the liberation struggle for nationalization of our mineral and energy companies. They made a deal with the industries, big business and the old government that we will not take the whole cake and nationalize it. What we will do is ask for a small slice of it, and we will call it Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). So it has been pre-occupied with BEE.

Yes we have a lot of political freedoms, we have a democracy - but it has a very neo-liberal agenda and very pro-industry orientation to all its policies. So for example, it is now allowing huge smelters to draw excessive amounts of electricity thereby increasing our carbon-emissions. We are building more coal-fired industries at the cost of 80 billion rands, but we are also going into nuclear technology. It is as if we are taking a big step back.

And along they way they failed to redistribute land back to the landless people, they failed miserably in terms of service delivery to the poor and that has seen a lot of violent protests. And it has failed dismally on its AIDS and HIV policy.

There is a lot of struggle fatigue, it is very hard to get the people mobilized beyond AIDS/HIV and service delivery but I think the time will come when we shall see a resurgence of social movements in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Would it be fair to say that we need to redefine what democracy means to us and inject a component of social justice?

MARIAM MAYET: As I said, we are never going to achieve social justice within a neo-liberal paradigm because it is always going to be favoring certain classes. So we really need to think beyond political rights, we have to think about our social economic rights. We can only be free once we achieve social justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: One last question: Your thoughts on the 2010 South Africa world cup?

MARIAM MAYET: The world cup is going to be a drain of our resources – and we cannot justify the enormous carbon footprint we shall leave behind - where all these people from all over the world take flights to come to watch a soccer match – we will need 2 billion litters of water for all these visitors – we shouldn’t be hosting such an event. We have other priorities.

It is not that I do not care for soccer, I do – but really Africa should not be hosting mega-events like this, for only two sectors will gain – airlines and people who already have a lot of money. The money that is coming in will not filter down to the people. How is the world cup going to benefit the poor people? I do wish African countries all the best in the world cup but we also need to take care of our people and our resources.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

With higher petrol prices, biofuel has been touted as a possible answer to the world’s energy needs. But Mariam Mayet explains how the argument for biofuels can also be used to mask the introduction of genetically modified crops. In reality, biofuel would require massive state support – support that could be spent on other socio-economic priorities.

On the 12th May, Syngenta South Africa (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of Swiss Agrochemical giant, Syngenta, notified the South African public of its intention to seek commodity clearance for its genetically modified (GM) maize, Event 3272, for use in the production of ethanol. [1] This precedent setting application, the first GM application for commercial approval in the world for a non-feed, non-food GM crop, (using a food crop), has simultaneously also been launched in the US, the EU and China.

The application by Syngenta illustrates its expediency and desperation: Syngenta hopes to cash in on a potentially lucrative burgeoning global bioethanol market, riding on the back of escalating oil prices and supply fluctuations, while at the same time, securing new markets for its GM products where there is little risk of consumer rejection.

However, Syngenta’s application is also mysterious, for two reasons. The application made to South Africa is for clearance to expedite imports and not for growing. It is a guarded secret as to where Syngenta hopes to grow the GM maize. South Africa does not import GM maize from the US, for several reasons, including the fact that the US has approved many more GM events (varieties) than has South Africa and contamination by unapproved GMOs cannot be ruled out or avoided. [2] In any case, the US will rely on its own domestic market to sustain the demand for ethanol from maize in that country. South Africa, does, however, import huge amounts of GM maize from Argentina. Will Argentina become the factory farm or will it be another developing country?

Second, the application seems to be superfluous in the light that Diversa Corporation, well known to anti-biopiracy activists, recently brought to the market, the same enzyme alpha-amylases, used in Syngenta’s GM maize. The enzyme is derived from a deep-sea micro-organism [3] and is meant to convert the starch present in maize into sugars for processing into ethanol. This same rationale is being given by Syngenta to the South African authorities as motivation to grant approval for the GM maize! What makes it all the more curious is that Syngenta owns substantial shares in Diversa.

Interest in ethanol as a biofuel is not new. It began during the oil crisis of the 1970s at that time when several countries, led by the US, began to phase out lead from gasoline. In 1978, the US Congress approved the National Energy Act, which included a Federal tax exemption on gasoline blended with 10% alcohol. Federal subsidies also reduced the cost of ethanol to around the wholesale price of gasoline. [4] Thus, in the US, ethanol relies heavily on subsidies to remain economically viable as a gasoline- blending component. The current Federal subsidy of 51-cents-a-gallon makes it possible for ethanol to compete as a gasoline additive. The US also imposes a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, thus promoting its domestic ethanol production.

However, gleaning from the literature, the ethanol subsidy is due to expire in 2007/8, and it is not clear whether ethanol will continue to receive political support.

In the US, ethanol is derived mainly from maize and is blended in quantities up to 10% in gasoline (also called E10 or low-blend). In terms of the Energy Bill passed called “EPAct 2005”, the volume of ethanol will be increased from the current 4 billion gallons/year to 7.5 billion. It is reported that a booming ethanol industry will consume 20% of the 2006 US maize crop, cutting the maize surplus in half by 2007, or 1.14 billion bushels. Some 54 million tonnes of the 2006 maize crop is projected to go to ethanol plants, up 34% from 40.6 million tonnes). [5]

There are 97 ethanol plants in the US with a capacity of 4.5 billion gallons (17 billion litres) a year. There are 44 projects under way that will add 1.4 billion gallons of capacity this year. By early 2007, the US it is expected to be producing at a rate of 24.6 billion litres of ethanol, requiring 2.15 billion bushels of maize. [6] This implies an increase in maize production in the US to sustain the demand for maize. Currently, the US is the world’s largest maize derived ethanol producer, accounting for 33% of the global market. Brazil is the world leader in ethanol production, derived from sugarcane, accounting for 37% of the global market. [7]

At the beginning of 2006, South Africa phased out the use of lead, which created a boon to the ethanol industry, as ethanol can be used as an additive to boost the octane number of unleaded fuel. In addition, and following on from the lead of the US, at the launch of the National Energy Regulator of South Africa in November 2005, Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said that the South African Cabinet had approved a proposal by the Departments of Minerals and Energy (DME), Agriculture and Land Affairs, and Science and Technology, to explore biofuels as an important component of South Africa’s energy mix.

Touted as a cleaner, greener fuel, by reducing CO2 emissions by 60%, ethanol is said to bring huge socio-economic benefits through especially job creation. According to Busi Nxumalo, South Africa’s Energy Development Corporation’s (EDC) business and market analyst, a strong local biofuels industry will also make a significant contribution to South Africa’s GDP. According to him, if a 10% blended bioethanol is achieved, it will add 0,25% to the country’s GDP. In addition, a 10% blending ratio will enable South Africa to save R2.5-billion a year in imports, which equates to a reduction of 1% in overall national foreign expenditure. [8]

Industry lobby groups are feverishly pushing the South African government to create the economic regulatory framework to do two things: to make the blending of ethanol into petrol mandatory for oil companies, and to allow a 30% reduction in the fuel levy to be extended to bioethanol industry, as it currently does, the biodiesel industry. Indeed, Ngubane has said very recently that the EDC was investigating the viability of adding a 10% ethanol blend to petrol. [9]

However, once maize is harvested, three energy expenditures in ethanol production raise the total costs. These include energy to the transport of maize grain to the ethanol plant, energy expended to provide the capital equipment requirements for the plant, and energy expanded in the plant operations for the fermentation and distillation processes. The effective energy balance of ethanol as a biofuels is therefore in doubt.

A study by Pimental and Patzek shows that turning plants such as maize, soyabeans and sunflowers into fuel uses more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesal generate. [10] Ethanol for example can’t be transported via pipeline - it has to be carried from distillation plants via truck and railraod, which creates additional energy costs. Thus, bio-ethanol from maize has a much worse energy balance and does not have environmental benefits.

Using maize for ethanol production is costly in terms of land use, fossil energy, and most importantly it subverts valued human food and animal feed from direct use. The fact that ethanol production has a negative energy balance further precludes its place as an alternative liquid fuel for the future. It must also be borne in mind that maize prices are the dominant cost factor in ethanol production, and ethanol supply is extremely sensitive to maize prices. Ethanol production will drop when maize is in short supply and prices are higher.

It is therefore apparent that bioethanol production for a fuel blend will require enormous government assistance and subsidies to be viable for the bioethanol industry as a whole, subsidies that can be more appropriately allocated to other pressing socio-economic priorities for South Africa.

* Mariam Mayet from the African Centre for Biodiversity. This article is based on a briefing document produced by the African Centre for Biosafety entitled “South Africa, Bioethanol and GMOs: A heady muxture”

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

References:
[1] Such clearance would be given by the Executive Council, Genetically Modified Organisms Act, and will therefore serve as a blank cheque, for the international grain traders, to ship the GM maize into South Africa in huge quantities.

[2] Personal Communication, National Department of Agriculture, February 2006.

[3] “It came from beneath the sea” Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 23, No.10, Oct. 2005, pp. 119-1201.

[4] Joseph DiPardo Outlook for Biomass Ethanol Production and Demand, Energy Information Administration.

[5] Ethanol, Biodiesel eats into Corn Stockpiles, 15 May 2006 http://www.planetarket.com/dailynewstory.cfm/newsid/36348/story.htm

[6] According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s chief economist, Keith Collins. Ethanol, Biodiesel eats into Corn Stockpiles, 15 May 2006 http://www.planetarket.com/dailynewstory.cfm/newsid/36348/story.htm

[7] Worldwatch: State of the World 2006, Chapter 4, Endnote 13.

[8] South Africa Sows Crops-to-Energy Seeds, Engineering News 5 December 2005.

[9] Energy body probes ethanol-mixed petrol, 17 May 2006 http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

On the 19th January 2004, Monsanto SA (Pty) Ltd stunned South Africans when it announced that it was seeking a food and feed safety clearance for its genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready wheat to expedite future imports. This application must be seen against the backdrop to the fact that GM wheat is not grown commercially in any part of the world and is years away from regulatory approval in Canada and the United States of America (US) where research and experiments are still continuing and no approval has yet been granted.

Once Monsanto obtains such approval, the legislative weakness in the South African biosafety law expressly excludes future importers of Roundup Ready wheat from the need to obtain import permits. Biosafety oversight will in that event, effectively cease to exist. Such future importers of the Roundup Ready wheat would then have carte blanche to import the Roundup Ready wheat into South Africa, and thereby not have to comply with the biosafety oversight procedures in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Biosafety Protocol). Crucially, approval from the South African authorities will provide Monsanto with an enormous political coup to convince other African countries that its Roundup Ready GM wheat is “safe”. It will also go a long way towards laying the groundwork for control over the very lucrative wheat market in Africa.

In this context it is worth noting that Africa imports approximately 30 million tons of wheat per year. The US government has targeted Africa as a major market for its wheat, especially since competition from the European Union (EU) and Russia is not as fierce owing to dwindling wheat exports from these countries. The US expects its exports to climb to 30 million tons during 2004, an 8-year high, and “sales to Africa will be a major reason.”

Monsanto's Difficulties with obtaining approval in Canada and the US

Monsanto Canada and Monsanto Corporate have applied for regulatory approval for its Roundup Ready GM wheat in both the USA and Canada. However, to date, neither the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, nor Health Canada, have granted approvals for general cultivation and human safety respectively. Monsanto Canada's failure to obtain such approval is partly due to the groundswell of resistance from farmers and farmer organisations in Canada. Two years ago, the organic farmers of Saskatchewan filed a class action lawsuit to stop Roundup Ready wheat. On 27th May 2003, the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), a farmer-controlled grain marketing agency called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw its environmental safety assessment. Recently, Agriculture Canada announced that it was abandoning its long running project involving GM wheat it had been developing in partnership with Monsanto. Jim Bole from the government Department of Agriculture Canada said that this decision reflected the concerns of Canada's wheat customers.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is still in the throes of conducting a voluntary safety review of Monsanto Corporation's Roundup Ready wheat for human and animal consumption. Monsanto Corporation is still awaiting approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.) The FDA, USDA and EPA share regulatory oversight for GM crops in the US where there is no overarching comprehensive biosafety legislation.

Paying Lip Service to Biosafety

The central question that the South African government must answer, is what data exactly, will it use to consider, assess and evaluate Monsanto's application, particularly since the field trials and safety evaluations are still taking place in the US and Canada? Why is it that Monsanto is so confident so as to seek a food and feed safety clearance from the South African government? South Africa's bias in favour of GMOs is well documented. Its biosafety laws pays lip service to the notion public biosafety concerns. It has long since been described by environmental and development lawyers as showing “a cynical disregard for contemporary international and national environmental principles, as well as for the development imperatives of South Africa”. Monsanto's application also has implications for the integrity of the Biosafety Protocol. The First Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol will take place in Malaysia from 23rd to 27th February, a momentous event in global genetic engineering regulation since the Protocol entered into force only on 11th September 2003.

South Africa is a Party to the Biosafety Protocol but it has not yet revised its GMO Act, to give effect to the Biosafety Protocol. South Africa's Constitution does, however, make it clear that the Biosafety Protocol is binding on South Africa.

However, the safety approval sought by Monsanto is in respect of non-existent GM wheat, whereas the Biosafety Protocol applies to real situations of cross border trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and not to speculative trade in respect of non existent GMOs. An early decision now in favour of the import of Monsanto's GM wheat, relieves South Africa of the obligation later, to abide by the regulatory requirements of the Biosafety Protocol, including its critically important Precautionary Principle. Such a pre-emptive move by Monsanto is clearly calculated to undermine the spirit, intention, principles and objectives of the Biosafety Protocol.

Pre-emptive Bid For Control Over Lucrative African Wheat Market

Monsanto Corporation needs the lucrative African wheat market. Its loss widened to $97 million it its fiscal first quarter in 2003, and this excludes its $69 million goodwill write off related to its global wheat business. North Africa imports approximately 18 million tons of wheat per year, and Sub-Saharan Africa approximately 10 million tons. South Africa itself is a net wheat importer, having imported 1.2 million tons of wheat during 2003, owing to the worst crop in a decade. The provision of wheat as food aid is also an important factor for the push for the African wheat market. For instance, Ethiopia, the centre of diversity of wheat, imported 600, 000 of wheat last year as food aid from the US and EU.

Safety clearance will greatly assist Monsanto to convince key African importers who have already voiced concern over GM wheat, to accept it as being safe. Consider for example the following statements:

“On January 5, Algeria, which imports large amounts of durum wheat from the United States, announced that it would not import any genetically modified wheat. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are taking a similar tack with respect to wheat”

“If you have just one grain in a thousand which is genetically modified, the consumer is going to refuse it.”

Thus, it is evident from the above that the granting of the application sought by Monsanto will greatly assist it to capture the African wheat market. South Africa is hence, the entry point for the export of GE wheat into the rest of Africa that will be forced to succumb in a domino effect.

* Mariam Mayet is an environmental lawyer, with a BA, LLB, LLM (Wits) and heads the African Centre for Biosafety.

* Send comments on this editorial - and other events in Africa - to

The Genetic Engineering (GE) industry is facing a shrinking global market as more and more countries adopt biosafety laws and GE labelling regulations. Moreover, as a result of widespread and mounting consumer rejection and the difficulties experienced by Monsanto in obtaining regulatory approval of its GE wheat, it has decided to pull out of the European cereal market.

Africa and Asia are the new frontiers for exploitation by the agro-chemical, seed and GE corporations. The potential for US agri-business to profit from hunger in Africa through, ostensibly the provision of food aid, technical assistance, capital investment, agricultural research and the funding of biosafety initiatives are enormous. The United States' Agency for International Development (USAID) appears to be at the forefront of a US marketing campaign to introduce GE food into the developing world. It has made it clear that it sees its role as having to "integrate biotechnology into local food systems and spread the technology through regions in Africa."[1]

Through USAID, in collaboration with the GE industry and several groups involved in GE research in the developed world, the US government is funding various initiatives aimed at biosafety regulation and decision-making in Africa, which if successful, may put in place weak biosafety regulation and oversight procedures. USAID is also heavily involved in funding various GE research projects in a bid to take control of African agricultural research.[2]

Biosafety under threat

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety finally came into force, after years of negotiation, on 11 September 2003. This international binding environmental agreement is specifically designed to protect human health, the environment and biodiversity from the risks posed by GMOs. It was countries from the South, and the African group in particular, that consistently championed biosafety and reaffirmed the right of importing countries to ban or severely restrict imports of GMOs in the face of scientific uncertainty, based on the precautionary principle. To date, 65 countries have ratified the Protocol, with many more ratifications expected before the first Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol takes place February 2004, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia[3]. Only 18 countries in Africa have so far ratified the Protocol[4] but many more could be persuaded to do so, in order for them to qualify for one or other of the numerous biosafety capacity building initiatives taking place on the continent.

However, the hard earned victories won under the Biosafety Protocol may be under serious threat from these GE 'biosafety' initiatives. There is an ever present danger that African countries will be overwhelmed by the volley of technical experts they are peppered with by USAID and GE industry money and expertise, that they will succumb, despite their valid concerns, to these formidable forces. The fad is the drafting of national biosafety frameworks. With their failure to prevent the Biosafety Protocol from coming into existence, the opportunity to exploit the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol to promote weak and ineffective biosafety legal regimes and redirect capacity building towards GE rather than biosafety, has been seized in an attempt to garner much needed support for this dangerous technology.

Examples of USAID's Biosafety Initiatives in Africa

* USAID through the Association to Strengthen Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) facilitates collaborative research between their 10 member countries[5], US public and private sectors and international agricultural research centres. It has developed a model for regional technical reviews within these member countries in close collaboration with national biosafety focal points.[6] The concern is that this initiative may well be used as a launching pad to foster regional acceptance of GE through weak biosafety regulations, and thereby promote the technology transfer and private sector investment in GE in Africa.

* USAID's Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) has established a partnership with seven Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries - Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe - to similarly provide technical training in biosafety regulatory implementation. Its ostensible goal is to promote conformity with the science-based standards of the World Trade Organisation's Sanitary and Phyotosanitary agreement and the Biosafety Protocol.[7] Needless to say, taking into account the US's WTO challenge of the European Union's de facto moratorium on GMOs, it is anticipated that every attempt will be made to ensure that biosafety regulations are consistent with the US interpretation of the WTO rules, rather than the Biosafety Protocol.

* USAID has awarded the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS), a consortium, $14.8 million to assist developing countries to enhance Biosafety policy, research, and capacity.[8] Included in this list of developing countries are a number of countries in East and West Africa. The International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) heads the consortium. The consortium is reported as having amongst its goals, the rendering of assistance "to governments in making science-based decisions about the effects on biodiversity of introducing GMOs into the environment" and assisting such countries in regulating and conducting experimental field trials. If this is the case, then these goals are preposterous as they are unashamedly aimed at usurping decision-making powers of countries and their sovereign rights to perform regulatory functions. It is extremely ironic that the US, still not a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and cannot therefore ratify the Biosafety Protocol (and will not do so in the foreseeable future) should want to promote biosafety in Africa and the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol.

It appears that the US and the GE industry are pursuing a well-orchestrated strategy in Africa to lower resistance to GE and gain acceptance of this extremely controversial technology. These initiatives may be given considerable impetus by the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) plan to establish a high level advisory panel aimed at "facilitating trade in GM products between African countries by harmonizing biosafety regulations". [9] However, this panel has not yet been established and its terms of reference made public. The direction that such panel would therefore take will reveal itself in the future.

It is worthwhile also to mention that the United Nation's Environmental Program (UNEP) with funding from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is conducting a worldwide capacity building project involving more than 100 developing countries, several from Africa.[10] The main objective of this project is "the preparation of National Biosafety Frameworks in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Biosafety Protocol."[11] Its overall efficacy in capacitating African countries to establish sound biosafety frameworks remains to be seen. Crucially, the nature of its linkages with the USAID/GE industry biosafety projects if any will also become apparent with the passage of time.

Finally, what remains to be seen, is the extent to which South Africa's biosafety law will be used as a basis to harmonise biosafety laws on the continent. Zimbabwe, the only other country aside from South who has biosafety laws in Africa has already followed South Africa's example. South Africa's Genetically Modified Organisms Act is a poor example of biosafety regulation.[12] It is in effect, merely a permitting system designed to expedite GM imports into the country and releases into the environment. It specifically mandates that biosafety risk assessment involve no more than a paper audit, which entails a review of the 'safety' information generated by the corporations during product development.

Africa's redeeming assets

While on the surface, this picture appears bleak; there is a groundswell of NGOs, consumers, farmers, government officials, parliamentarians and scientists opposing GE in Africa. Benin for example, has imposed a moratorium on the imports and cultivation of GMOs.

Last year, several countries in Southern Africa resisted and seriously questioned the donation by the US through USAID, of GE food aid. Zambia refused to accept the food aid and effectively took a decision to ban the distribution of food aid within its borders. Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe requested that all US imported GE maize be milled prior to distribution in order to prevent its inadvertent use as seed. Lesotho and Swaziland authorized the distribution of non-milled GE aid but not before it warned the public that the grain should be used strictly for consumption and not cultivation. This saga played an important role in heightening the debate within Africa on the health, social, economic and environmental impacts of GE crops. An offshoot of this is the publication by the SADC Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and Biosafety of their recommendations regarding GE food aid. These are significant because a key recommendation is that donors of GE food aid should comply with Prior Informed Consent principles and the notification requirements of the Biosafety Protocol. This is extremely important, given that the World Food Program has admitted that it has, since 1996 been delivering food aid that included GE food products, without warning the recipient countries.[13] It also calls for the African region to develop harmonized policy and regulatory systems based on the OAU African Model Law on Safety in Biotechnology (Model Law), and the Biosafety Protocol.

The Model Law is a set of holistic and stringent biosafety rules drafted by a number of African biosafety experts crafted specifically to protect Africa's biodiversity, environment and the health of its people from the risks posed by GMOs. The African Union Summit held in Maputo during July 2003 pointedly encouraged African countries to use the Model Law as a basis for biosafety regulation.[14] The adoption of the Model Law in Africa will give countries leverage to resist attempts by the powerful GE industry to use Africa as experimental and dumping grounds for their products. Africa's biodiversity and the health of its people, can only be protected from the risks posed by GMOs if Africa as a whole, subscribes to common and uniform biosafety standards, based on the precautionary principle.

These gems are important contributions towards maximizing Africa's chances to limit the risks posed by GE. It is clear, however, that much needs to be done. One of the key challenges for African civil society in particular, is to embark on strategies and initiatives directed at influencing and shaping policy, legislative and procedural frameworks on the continent and engage national and regional bodies such as SADC and NEPAD.

* Mariam Mayet is an environmental lawyer, with a BA, LLB, LLM (Wits) and heads the African Centre for Biosafety. This article was published in the current edition of the Third World Resurgence, Issue NO. 159-160. It is reproduced here with permission of the author. Click on the link below for references.