The vast continent of Africa has long been a key target for GM agriculture [1,2]. So far, three GM crop types (cotton, soya and maize) all with the standard insect-resistance or herbicide-tolerance traits have been released across six African countries, the most widely adopted one being 'Bt' insecticidal cotton. These are all commodity crops designed for maximum yield, and are promoted as a tool to boost agricultural productivity and alleviate food insecurity. There has, however, been a clear gap between the promises and the reality.
A study published in 2021 explored this problem.
Burkina Faso was the first country to introduce a GM crop to smallholders. Bt cotton was rapidly embraced there and, with projected yield increases of 30%, it seemed like a winner. Indeed, it was still being hailed as a "runaway success" even when, after eight years of experience of growing the GM crop and only two years after peak adoption, Bt cotton was abandoned entirely.
Three underlying reasons were identified for this sudden change of mind about the biotech wonder-crop.
One was the top-down approach to the implementation of the crop. Its early apparent success hinged on easy credit and a restrictive buying arrangement which penalised those opting for non-GM varieties. When these enabling conditions were withdrawn, farmers' enthusiasm for the crop evaporated.
The second reason was the top-down approach to the design of the crop. With a narrow focus on yield, no attention was paid to quality. The lint quality was so inferior, no one wanted to buy it.
The third reason was that the winning projected yield increase failed to materialise. Conventional yield predictions are based on carefully tended crops in well-resourced experimental stations or selected farm trials where all inputs and treatments are optimised: these deliver wildly inflated estimates of the real-life situation. Besides being based on unrealisable maximums, the 30% mythical yield benefit suited the biotech industry very well because it was used in calculating its royalty payments. All bolstered by selective reporting and evidence-free assertions.
Soon to be commercialised are second-generation GM crops. These are based on African smallholder staples. They've been developed using the same top-down approach and assessed using the same method of extrapolation from the ideal as were the first generation ones. The researchers, therefore, explored the likelihood that the new GM crops could deliver as promised, or that they would be abandoned as impractical.
Their investigation was based on farming systems research (FSR) which uses the actual farmers, their household and farming practices, local ecology, land, climate, and socio-cultural context as the analytical focus. From this, appropriate technologies to meet actual smallholder needs can be generated. Importantly, the "... FSR-informed analytical approach is grounded in the understanding of the farm as a system that is diverse and constantly evolving ...".
Three case studies "built on significant long-term field work of local farming systems in which these crops will be released and promoted" were presented.
The findings could be summarised as: second-generation GM crops are resource-hungry, badly conceived and, in a word, inappropriate.
One such crop is Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) [3], which sought to integrate artificial genes for drought tolerance and insect resistance within an existing maize breeding scheme aimed at the development of locally-adapted crops.
As usual, field trials suggested a yield benefit of 20-40% in the stacked-trait GM maize. This fabulous predicted yield was based on a sample-size of seven plants.
The insect-resistance trait incurs the obligation on farmers to plant 20% non-GM refugia to slow the evolution of Bt-resistant pests. This involves far too much land, labour and time for smallholders to implement. A survey in 2015 found that 92% of farmers had never heard of refugia.
WEMA seeds come with a "biotechnology bundle" which the researchers describe as a "... hodgepodge of required inputs relating to credit, fertiliser and labour ... to maximise the beneficial traits of drought-tolerance and insect-resistance". Besides the (climate-unfriendly) artificial fertiliser on which the yields depend, the bundle dictates "... proper weeding, proper planting, timely planting, how many seed you put per hole ...". These specifications are prohibitively complex and labour intensive. Moreover, it's a very expensive and over-burdensome way to 'answer' the highly variable and intermittent issues of drought and pests.
A second crop investigated was disease-resistant GM matooke for Uganda.
Matooke is a cooking banana and forms a principle part of the diet in Uganda, representing over 30% of the country's daily caloric intake. It is eaten cooked and pounded into a bright yellow mash.
The GM matooke has two genes from green pepper inserted to seal off cells infected by Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW), a devastating disease. Developers plan to insert the new genes into conventionally bred 'M9' bananas, an "outstanding improved variety that produces high yield and demonstrates strong tolerance to common pests and diseases that damage matooke".
Is this the Ugandan farmers' dream banana?
M9 is described by growers as being more delicate, requiring more labour (regular de-suckering, de-leafing and removal of male buds), more inputs, being too hard to mash, and white ("if it white it not even matooke"). Also, M9 must be purchased as plantlets from a nursery at a cost 6-8 times what farmers are used to paying for suckers through informal channels.
Farmers aren't finding the GM matooke on offer quite as 'outstanding' or 'improved' as its developers.
Finally, there's Bt cowpea resistant to 'legume pod borer' (LPB) for Burkina Faso.
Cowpea is an important indigenous crop in Africa. It is traditionally intercropped with cereals, but now increasingly grown in single-crop fields for sale in local and regional markets.
Advocates of Bt cowpea claim it will reduce chemical pest control and increase yields, with high returns for both producers and consumers (the figures for these projections are derived from Burkina Faso's neighbouring countries).
Given the distribution of cowpea production in Burkina Faso and the prevalence of the LPB pest in different parts of the country (areas which don't coincide!), it appears Bt cowpea is best suited to farmers in areas where cowpea isn't a major crop and then only in years when the pest intensity is high. At least three other major pests have a greater potential to reduce cowpea yields than LPB.
Since it's is the same pesticide, applied at the same time, which is used to control both LPB and thrips, eliminating one of these pests isn't going to reduce pesticide use. In fact, LPB is not a primary worry for cowpea growers.
Of most concern is that Bt cowpea is a bush-like plant with large grain size and white colour geared towards commercial production by male farmers. It is unsuitable for the traditional intercropping carried out by women farmers. Intercropping requires creeping plants which cover the soil and climb the cereal stalks, reducing soil erosion, conserving humidity and fixing nitrogen. Intercropping also encourages the natural enemies of cowpea pests.
Bt cowpea seed will be expensive to purchase (even without any technology fee).
It's inescapable that Bt cowpea is aimed at pushing farmers towards a commercial, male-dominant, high-input (climate-unfriendly), monoculture mode of production.
Bring this study to the attention of regulators, because it's not just African smallholders being shoe-horned into the top-down biotech dream juggernaut, farmers everywhere need to be consulted and involved in crop development appropriate to their individual context.
Background
[1] AFRICAN GM MAIZE REALITY CHECK - August, 2015
[2] OFF-LOADING GM MAIZE IN SOUTH AFRICA? - June, 2019
[3] SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT CROPS FOR AFRICA - May 2019
Sources:
Three underlying reasons were identified for this sudden change of mind about the biotech wonder-crop.
One was the top-down approach to the implementation of the crop. Its early apparent success hinged on easy credit and a restrictive buying arrangement which penalised those opting for non-GM varieties. When these enabling conditions were withdrawn, farmers' enthusiasm for the crop evaporated.
The second reason was the top-down approach to the design of the crop. With a narrow focus on yield, no attention was paid to quality. The lint quality was so inferior, no one wanted to buy it.
The third reason was that the winning projected yield increase failed to materialise. Conventional yield predictions are based on carefully tended crops in well-resourced experimental stations or selected farm trials where all inputs and treatments are optimised: these deliver wildly inflated estimates of the real-life situation. Besides being based on unrealisable maximums, the 30% mythical yield benefit suited the biotech industry very well because it was used in calculating its royalty payments. All bolstered by selective reporting and evidence-free assertions.
Soon to be commercialised are second-generation GM crops. These are based on African smallholder staples. They've been developed using the same top-down approach and assessed using the same method of extrapolation from the ideal as were the first generation ones. The researchers, therefore, explored the likelihood that the new GM crops could deliver as promised, or that they would be abandoned as impractical.
Their investigation was based on farming systems research (FSR) which uses the actual farmers, their household and farming practices, local ecology, land, climate, and socio-cultural context as the analytical focus. From this, appropriate technologies to meet actual smallholder needs can be generated. Importantly, the "... FSR-informed analytical approach is grounded in the understanding of the farm as a system that is diverse and constantly evolving ...".
Three case studies "built on significant long-term field work of local farming systems in which these crops will be released and promoted" were presented.
The findings could be summarised as: second-generation GM crops are resource-hungry, badly conceived and, in a word, inappropriate.
One such crop is Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) [3], which sought to integrate artificial genes for drought tolerance and insect resistance within an existing maize breeding scheme aimed at the development of locally-adapted crops.
As usual, field trials suggested a yield benefit of 20-40% in the stacked-trait GM maize. This fabulous predicted yield was based on a sample-size of seven plants.
The insect-resistance trait incurs the obligation on farmers to plant 20% non-GM refugia to slow the evolution of Bt-resistant pests. This involves far too much land, labour and time for smallholders to implement. A survey in 2015 found that 92% of farmers had never heard of refugia.
WEMA seeds come with a "biotechnology bundle" which the researchers describe as a "... hodgepodge of required inputs relating to credit, fertiliser and labour ... to maximise the beneficial traits of drought-tolerance and insect-resistance". Besides the (climate-unfriendly) artificial fertiliser on which the yields depend, the bundle dictates "... proper weeding, proper planting, timely planting, how many seed you put per hole ...". These specifications are prohibitively complex and labour intensive. Moreover, it's a very expensive and over-burdensome way to 'answer' the highly variable and intermittent issues of drought and pests.
A second crop investigated was disease-resistant GM matooke for Uganda.
Matooke is a cooking banana and forms a principle part of the diet in Uganda, representing over 30% of the country's daily caloric intake. It is eaten cooked and pounded into a bright yellow mash.
The GM matooke has two genes from green pepper inserted to seal off cells infected by Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW), a devastating disease. Developers plan to insert the new genes into conventionally bred 'M9' bananas, an "outstanding improved variety that produces high yield and demonstrates strong tolerance to common pests and diseases that damage matooke".
Is this the Ugandan farmers' dream banana?
M9 is described by growers as being more delicate, requiring more labour (regular de-suckering, de-leafing and removal of male buds), more inputs, being too hard to mash, and white ("if it white it not even matooke"). Also, M9 must be purchased as plantlets from a nursery at a cost 6-8 times what farmers are used to paying for suckers through informal channels.
Farmers aren't finding the GM matooke on offer quite as 'outstanding' or 'improved' as its developers.
Finally, there's Bt cowpea resistant to 'legume pod borer' (LPB) for Burkina Faso.
Cowpea is an important indigenous crop in Africa. It is traditionally intercropped with cereals, but now increasingly grown in single-crop fields for sale in local and regional markets.
Advocates of Bt cowpea claim it will reduce chemical pest control and increase yields, with high returns for both producers and consumers (the figures for these projections are derived from Burkina Faso's neighbouring countries).
Given the distribution of cowpea production in Burkina Faso and the prevalence of the LPB pest in different parts of the country (areas which don't coincide!), it appears Bt cowpea is best suited to farmers in areas where cowpea isn't a major crop and then only in years when the pest intensity is high. At least three other major pests have a greater potential to reduce cowpea yields than LPB.
Since it's is the same pesticide, applied at the same time, which is used to control both LPB and thrips, eliminating one of these pests isn't going to reduce pesticide use. In fact, LPB is not a primary worry for cowpea growers.
Of most concern is that Bt cowpea is a bush-like plant with large grain size and white colour geared towards commercial production by male farmers. It is unsuitable for the traditional intercropping carried out by women farmers. Intercropping requires creeping plants which cover the soil and climb the cereal stalks, reducing soil erosion, conserving humidity and fixing nitrogen. Intercropping also encourages the natural enemies of cowpea pests.
Bt cowpea seed will be expensive to purchase (even without any technology fee).
It's inescapable that Bt cowpea is aimed at pushing farmers towards a commercial, male-dominant, high-input (climate-unfriendly), monoculture mode of production.
OUR COMMENT
A 'Farming Systems Research' approach to crop evaluation is desperately needed to protect smallholders from the excesses of GM: especially inappropriately designed crops, promotion of the monoculture model, and hyped 'benefits'.Bring this study to the attention of regulators, because it's not just African smallholders being shoe-horned into the top-down biotech dream juggernaut, farmers everywhere need to be consulted and involved in crop development appropriate to their individual context.
Background
[1] AFRICAN GM MAIZE REALITY CHECK - August, 2015
[2] OFF-LOADING GM MAIZE IN SOUTH AFRICA? - June, 2019
[3] SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT CROPS FOR AFRICA - May 2019
Sources:
- Why
do GMOs for developing countries always disappoint? GM Watch, 16.10.21
- Matthew
A. Schnurr and Brian Dowd-Uribe, 2021, Anticipating farmer outcomes of
three genetically modified staple crops in sub-Saharan Africa: insights
from farming systems research, Journal of Rural Studies
- Jessie K. Luna and Brian Dowd-Uribe, 2020, Knowledge politics and the Bt cotton success narrative in Burkina Faso, World Development 136
Photo: Creative Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.