Biotechnology and the Politics of the Ownership of Life: Toward a Cohesive Southern African Perspective.
By Glenn Ashton
1 Introduction: What are the implications of the Age of Biology?
“To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the
multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognise the significant in the factual is wisdom.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945)
“Ethics as Formation,”
Ethics, Macmillan (1955)
1.1 The Age of Biology: A new frontier of science and ownership.
Over the past couple of decades humans have seen the approach of our reclassification as resources – along with all other life on earth. Now that the deep shadow of slavery has been lifted from our collective psyche this novel form of ownership threatens to enclose the global commons of life, including us. The ownership of life by private interests is upon us. This is when the personal becomes political, it is the biopolitics of life.
The advances over the last quarter of a century in the field of biology - and more specifically around genetics - have far more profound implications than the sudden disruption of life on earth by a series of thermonuclear explosions. The power of life is insidious, yet remains veiled from the human psyche, a step removed from our comprehension, something bordering the realms of religion, ethics or the unspeakable.
In our new biological age previously impossible events have become possible. Scientists are busy assembling the first human conceived and have made living organisms. Cloned microbes are now old hat, cloned animals are an increasing reality, though not without their own problems. Rumours of shadowy groups successfully having cloned humans are picked up by a gawking media. Are there shades of Frankenstein or Brave New World concealed amongst our progress?
Through a combination of the application of the arcane knowledge and wealth needed to control life through restrictive and predatory global intellectual property regimes, life can now be privately owned by individuals, corporations and states. The implications are staggering.
1.2 The politics of biology: An Ubuntu perspective.
We must consider how to deal with these challenges. The commodification of life by a predominantly male, corporate controlled world, is little less than a bold smash and grab of the riches of our international biodiversity. The nurturing, feminine aspect of life, long marginalised, faces further alienation, possible extinction.
Africa has an important role to play in this debate and the concept of Ubuntu provides a useful tool. In Xhosa there is a saying: "Umuntu ngumntu ngabantu"; loosely translated this means that a person is only a person through other people, through the community. We can extend this and say that a person cannot survive without a supportive life matrix, involving all other life on earth. We are unique yet an intrinsic part of the whole.
This biological revolution has been so rapid that society is struggling to deal with the implications. Most of us have not yet begun to consider the implications of our emerging power over life. Are humans actually capable of meaningfully digesting this almost omnipotent power and dealing responsibly with it? Is secular science coupled to the commercial imperative the correct vehicle to drive the biotech revolution? Are we smart enough to foresee the impacts of our interference in the processes of life?
How do we analyse the politics of biology? I believe that Africa can lead the way in this debate with our unique perspective on both our interconnected humanity and our close relationship to the soil and life around us.
2 Exploiting Biotechnology: Theory and Practice.
Before we analyse the biopolitics, let us take a glimpse of some of the technology that make up biotechnology.
What is biotechnology? There are many definitions but generally speaking, biotechnology is defined as the technology of manipulating and controlling life processes, through technical means, in order to harness these life forces to our benefit.
2.1 Micro-organisms: Traditional biotechnology.
Whenever biotechnology is discussed, we are reminded that this is an ancient art.
In traditional biotechnology, microbes, yeast or bacteria are employed to brew alcohol, curdle cheese or raise bread. Humans have evolved in concert with these technologies that provide healthy food for us.
2.2 Traditional Plant biotechnology.
Plant biotechnology is as old, if not older than traditional biotechnology. We have bred plants for at least 12, 000 years, possibly far longer. Plant breeding is only possible between closely related species.
We are constantly reminded by those involved in modern biotechnology that cloning and genetic engineering are the same as traditional plant breeding. This is however a rather ingenuous claim and must be disputed. Our present biological experimentation has far more profound implications and is very different to traditional breeding and biotechnology.
An elementary difference is that modern biotechnology is able to nullify inherent natural control mechanisms. Genetic engineering can, and does, shatter the species boundaries for the first time in evolutionary history. It places inordinate power in the hands of humans. It is driven primarily for profit and is not mediated by natural control mechanisms. These are some of the issues at the root of opposition to modern biotechnology.
In short, do humans have the knowledge and insight to manage life on earth in a responsible manner? Clearly, given our record of global warming, ecosystem destruction and so forth, this is a moot point.
2.3 Modern plant biotechnology.
What are some of the modern methods of biotechnology?
2.3.1 Tissue culture.
Tissue culture involves taking a few cells of plant material, which are then grown in a suitable medium until they are viable plants. These are then planted out and grown normally. Tissue culture is effectively cloning plants.
This method enables us to provide uncontaminated plant material, free of plant pathogens. It can also be used to preserve endangered plants or to grow plants useful for biomedical research. The risks include a reliance on a narrow genetic variety for breeding stock, producing plants prone to disease because of the lack of diversity.
2.3.2. Marker Assisted Breeding.
A promising tool for plant biotechnology is the use of marker assisted breeding, or MAB. This involves the identification of desirable genetic traits, through observation and genetic analysis. The plant is then bred to manifest these traits. For instance the presence of a drought resistance gene may be identified; using MAB, the plants may then be bred using conventional breeding methods but reliant on genetic technology to ensure the traits are indeed present. MAB has aroused somewhat less controversy than cloning or genetic engineering.
2.3.3 Genetic Engineering.
The technology of genetic engineering is also called genetic manipulation. I prefer the term genetic engineering, as new traits are literally engineered into the organism that is being altered. We can sensibly argue that we have been genetically manipulating plants through conventional breeding for millennia. This blurring of terms is counterproductive and is part of the intentional confusion sown by industry. Breeding is worlds apart from genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is controversial because it usually involves the movement of genetic material across species boundaries. It enables us, through technical methods, to insert genes that are deemed to provide useful characteristics, such as insecticidal properties to kill pests or chemical resistance to withstand widely used agro-chemicals - two of the most widely used GE crops ‘traits’.
Present GE crops include genes from organisms like bacteria, viruses, and antibiotics as well as naked DNA and other artificial genes. GE organisms still raise many questions regarding their necessity, health impacts, environmental safety and stability.
Much of the study around these products has been undertaken by vested interests. Significant gaps remain in our knowledge of the impacts of this economically driven evolution, reflected by the powerful global backlash against GM crops for both personal and precautionary reasons.
2.3.4 Pharming, Terminators and Traitors.
Two sub-categories of GE in plants are pharming and terminator or traitor crops. Pharming, with a PH at the start of the word, involves the use of plants to produce chemical compounds that are useful for medical, veterinary or pharmaceutical use. The problem around preventing the pollution of the food chain by these crops remains largely unaddressed. A number of incidents of pollution by these and other non-permitted GMOs such as Syngenta’s Bt10 maize, have occurred, highlighting inherent weaknesses in the existing global biosafety regime.
Terminator crops are plants that have their genes tweaked to produce sterile seed, forcing growers to return to the same commercial seed suppliers. Traitor crops are engineered to require the use of proprietary chemicals to make them grow, like a switch.
GE plants are clearly far removed from conventional breeding. Characteristics which cannot be introduced through conventional breeding can be inserted by genetic manipulation but with unpredictable risks.
2.4 Human biotechnology.
Compared to plant biotechnology, human biotech remains rather more fraught for several reasons. These include religious, gender, moral and ethical concerns, as well as the scientific uncertainty surrounding the consequences of our inapt interference in our genetic integrity.
2.4.1 Pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceutical compounds can be manufactured using GE technology. Bacteria have had DNA inserted that can produce chemicals or hormones. Human insulin is now produced like this, as is factor VIII, for haemophiliacs. While this may indicate progress, an unpredictable side effect is that some diabetics using the GE product find it difficult to control hyperglycaemic shock onset, highlighting the unpredictability of this process.
2.4.2 Stem Cells.
Stem cell therapy remains rather more controversial. It involves the use of undifferentiated cells from the umbilicus or harvested from a partially mature fertilised human egg. These stem cells are able to become any other type of cell, be it blood, brain or bone; skin, sinew or synapse. This therapy is consequently extremely attractive for corrective or reconstructive uses. For instance a new skin or liver could be grown from stem cells harvested from umbilical cells - stored at birth, ready for use in later life.
Beside the religious and ethical concerns this technology is potentially socially exclusive as only the wealthy can afford it. This raises the spectre of a poor underclass and a genetically tweaked wealthy superclass, compounding global inequity.
2.4.2 Gene Therapy.
Related to stem cell therapy is gene therapy where single gene diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anaemia, the latter common in Africa, are targeted by inserting ‘corrective’ genes into the person. Unfortunately this therapy has seen serious side effects and lapses of ethical procedure, raising all sorts of prickly questions about the risks and advisability of following this particular route. As above the matter of social exclusivity also applies.
2.4.3 Cloning.
Cloning is a highly emotionally and ethically charged issue. Reproductive cloning involves harvesting cells from an organism and then inserting them into an egg whose nucleus has been removed. The reconstructed egg is treated to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a surrogate parent to grow to term. Cloning has been used for replicating ‘identical’ animals. It is highly experimental, expensive and has only limited utility at present; it has a peak success rate of around 2% with some species, while complex animals such as chickens and great apes have proven impossible to clone, to date. Cloning of humans is globally proscribed although some fringe groups claim to have produced human clones but have failed to provide proof.
It is outrageously contradictory that the present US regime is reluctant to permit use of human stem cell cultures yet is perfectly comfortable to facilitate the sale of GM products for human consumption with no human testing. They claim such testing would be unethical,yet feeding these crops to people without permission or notification is deemed acceptable.
2.4.4 Genetic determinism: The central dogma meets the human genome project.
The preliminary human genome code, published in 2000, offers some clues to the complexity of genetics. Prior to this, it was assumed that humans had around 100, 000 genes - to account for their variability and complexity. The published genome contained only 35, 000 genes, a two thirds reduction of . This number was again revised in 2005 and now is around 25, 000 genes, a quarter of the original estimate. This exciting discovery has shown us not how much we understand about genetics, especially human genetics but emphasises just how little we know.
We are starting to learn how the proteins expressed by our genes react with hormones, antigens and other biological quanta sloshing around our metabolic soup, presenting a far more complex picture than the simplistic theory of genetic determinism. It appears we are often not what we are because of our genes but apparently despite them!
Given how poorly we understand how genetics works it is unsurprising that we appear to be intrinsically cautious about how we engage in experimenting on both ourselves and the rest of the biological matrix with which we are so intimately linked. There is a deep uneasiness that we may be entering the God Zone.
2.4.5 Appropriating humans for profit?
Through intellectual property laws commercial interests have laid claim to our very humanity. Researchers have been taking DNA samples in various populations around the world for years. What has now emerged is that many of these genetic discoveries have been patented, placing the genetic heritage of tribes, races and nations under the control of the commercial imperative.
2.5. Animal biotechnology.
This aspect of biotechnology bears a direct relationship to human biotech, in that we are able to do the same things as outlined in the previous section, but without such severe ethical constraints.
Rather more mundane techniques such as artificial insemination are established facts of life in animal breeding that has predictable and well-established advantages.
Animal and fish cloning have been undertaken, although cloning has proven to be an expensive, largely hit and miss affair, requiring huge investment for unproven returns. South Africa is the only country in the region that has successfully cloned animals, setting the ball rolling with a cow called “futhi,” Zulu for ‘again’.
Cloning may be far more useful for reasons of conservation, possibly saving threatened animals from extinction. Loss of genetic diversity remains the main risk of this modality. Marker assisted breeding will probably also be of some use in animal breeding.
Biotechnology may additionally offer solutions to sleeping sickness and various tick borne diseases, as well as other livestock related diseases.
More controversial is the use of animals for xenotransplantation – the growing of human organs for transplant – and genetically modifying them to produce commercially valuable proteins. Goats have been bred to produce spider silk protein in their milk and sheep bred to produce human hormones.
We need to interrogate animal biotechnology insofar as its relevance to the region is concerned. Given the state of play in livestock improvement in this region it would appear to be preferable to follow the simpler, more established route than the high risk, cost and dependency route at this juncture.
2.6 What drives the biotech revolution? Money, mass production, immortality and altruism.
The biotech boom is driven primarily by the commercial imperative, where research, both public and private, is harnessed or appropriated through intellectual property regimes and then commercialised. Vast amounts of speculative investment have been absorbed by the biotechnology industry - or the life sciences industry, as it likes to call itself - over the past two decades. To date, returns on investment have been poor.
Several recent analyses of the investment potential of biotechnology have shown how it has failed to provide market-related returns; still the biotech bubble continues to expand. The Wall Street Journal put the losses on investment in Biotech at over US$40 billion between 1990 and 2003. Several large agricultural biotech producers have departed from Europe due to public rejection. Investment in biotech remains risky, long term and often driven more by speculation than by market-related factors.
The huge investments directed toward biotechnology are a new gold rush - a “green rush,” if you like - of speculative patents on genetic information aimed at securing ownership of as much of life as possible. This green rush shows just how poorly suited and adapted our present commercial intellectual property system is, as far as respecting, nurturing and protecting the interests of the mechanisms of life.
2.6.1 The false pretenders: Exchanging baubles and beads for life?
In light of the above we must question the supposed promises of biotechnology. Is it really what it appears to be? Is there not a risk of selling ourselves short? This is a central question that we must answer as objectively and truthfully as possible.
Presently the main industrial applications are in plant science, such as GM crops, where only 1.4% of global agricultural land, primarily in 7 nations is planted to biotech varieties, despite much hype to the contrary. There is nevertheless huge pressure by industry to change this situation.
This pressure includes a concerted campaign, driven by both state and private interests. US and EU linked interests have committed at least half a billion US dollars to promote this technology globally, predominantly in the South.
Other biotech applications are more traditional with enhanced dairy, brewing, medical and chemical production, as well as numerous other downstream methods.
There are serious concerns around the commercial imperative negatively influencing evolutionary processes. More importantly, we must enquire what the traditional holders of this biological information will gain in return for the alienation of their resources.
2.6.2 Altruism and improving ourselves.
Another motivation for biotechnological research, particularly by practitioners and supporters of the technology, is an almost altruistic wish to apply their knowledge for the benefit of all. However noble the intentions in innovation, it is the eventual commercial value that will drive adoption.
Biotechnology is also attracting a significant amount of philanthropic funding, from Bill Gates and other first world foundations.
Corporations involved in pushing biotechnology have also created proxy organisations, dressed up as NGOs, that push their agenda. The pesticide industry body CropLife and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) are both (which one is the second one??? Crop life and ISAAA – ISAAA.) funded by Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and others. These organisations have spawned regional proxy organisations such as AfricaBio, African Agricultural Technology Foundation and Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation, several of which have received additional funding from the USA and the World Bank.
It is naïve to believe that those most intimately involved in promoting modern biotechnology, both scientists and industry, are either the sole arbiters or that they are able to comment objectively. Yet they are by far the most vociferous, supported by well-funded PR agencies. They need profit and investment; their products are hyped accordingly.
It is critical that government regulators and scientists, as well as public interest groups remain aloof from this hubris and properly inform themselves of the facts.
Most applications of modern biotechnology are pursued less for their benefits than for maximising capital return. More perturbingly, many of these technologies are pursued simply because they can be profitably employed while proper regulation and oversight is minimised.
3 The New colonialism: Biocolonialism.
This new convergence of technology, biology and capital may be novel but it is something with which Africa is all too familiar. This may explain African scepticism about biotechnology and GE crops in particular.
3.1 The three waves of exploitation: Human, resources, biological.
We have, in the history of western civilisation, seen three waves of exploitation that are both disparate yet overlap. First is human exploitation, including slavery, indentured labour, migratory labour practices and wage slavery. Its roots precede colonial exploitation, when slavery reached its climax, yet it continues to this day in various guises. (I deleted feudalism because this one does not have its roots in colonial exploitation. If you want to keep it, then the last sentence of the paragraph must be reformulated. Also slavery preceded colonialism. So this must also be taken into account when formulating the last sentence. Yes, partially so but it can be argued that slavery is one of the earliest forms of colonialism, with tribes enslaving neighbours in the earliest forms of this. This grew to be representative of the great early colonies, including the mideast, inidia, rome etc. I have altered the wording to be more inclusive).
Second is resource exploitation, with the usurpation of resources from resource rich but undeveloped nations by colonial powers throughout history. Despite these historical rootes it continues through the edicts of neo-colonialism and numerous other exploitative practices.
Then, most relevant to this paper is the third wave of exploitation, namely biological exploitation, or bio-colonialism. This, too, has historical roots. The appropriation of foods such as maize, tomatoes, breadfruit and yams, as well as plant varieties like our indigenous medicines that have been and are increasingly being expropriated, in what has been termed as bio-piracy.
Bio-colonialism, when coupled to the gene revolution, becomes a pervasive and threatening influence. Through being able to control life through modern intellectual property regimes, life has now become a tradable, commodified resource.
What is left to exploit? Nothing except an idea, the concept of owning life. If the already established commercial giants are able to harness life for profit they place themselves in an unassailable position to control the third wave of human exploitation of our planetary resources.
3.2 The mechanisms of patenting and ownership of life as a resource.
Since the Second World War a rigid framework for the international protection of intellectual property has evolved, primarily through a quasi-independent body called the World Intellectual Property Organisation, or WIPO. WIPO has been reinforced firstly through the growth of bodies involved in regulation of international trade like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and subsequently the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which resulted in the birth of the World Trade Organisation, the WTO. Under the WTO articles, powerful controls have been put in place over intellectual property, primarily under TRIPS, the Trade Related Intellectual Property regime. This regime is deeply problematic to Africa, particularly in its exclusion of traditional knowledge, bringing it into what Tewolde Egziabher calls the ‘ecosystem market.’
Because various legal bodies, including the US Supreme Court and the European Court, have recognised the ability to patent living organisms, biotechnology has become instrumental in the commodification of life. There has consequently been a concurrent increase in speculative patents, many of sweeping breadth, that facilitate the private ownership of some fundamental aspects of life.
Syngenta, for instance, controls patents on rice that could potentially allow it to control all GM rice varieties developed in future , and possibly on all flowering plants ! Monsanto holds a virtual monopoly patent on GM soy, recently upheld by the supreme EU patent office . Other companies control biotech medical technology and industrial processes, many again illegally pirated from Africa and elsewhere.
The intellectual property regime has inordinately benefited developed nations and large corporations. The ownership of life rapidly threatens to slip from the hands of the collective into the clutches of commercially aligned interests, just as other aspects of the global commons have been historically enclosed. The marked rise of the corporation into a virtual, profit driven super-state is the primary mechanism driving research into biotechnology generally and GM crops specifically.
3.3 Plant biotech globally.
The biggest, most visible application of biotechnology is the growth of GM crops, from almost nothing a decade ago to an estimated 1.4% of total global agricultural plantings at present.
What is more relevant is the concentration of seed and chemical and agro-business over the past decade, where a remarkable convergence continues apace.
3.3.1 Who?
Some facts: Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, in this order, are the three biggest seed corporations on earth. Syngenta and Monsanto are the worlds biggest sellers of agro-chemicals. DuPont is fifth. DuPont and Monsanto control almost 75% of US maize seed sales, whilst these companies also control almost 50% of global soy seed sales. Monsanto recently acquired Seminis, the world biggest vegetable seed company. It also controls a significant proportion of grain seed sales in South Africa. Over 90% of global GM plantings and almost 100% of GM crops in South Africa are patented by Monsanto. Monsanto recently has filed patent claims for pigs, indicating a chilling trend of further enclosure.
3.3.2 What?
Soy, resistant to proprietary weed killer is the biggest GM crop globally, running at over 60% of the total. This is followed by insect resistant GM maize, then insect resistant cotton and then herbicide resistant canola, or rapeseed. These are all mainstream commodity crops, grown mostly for the feed, oil and fibre industries.
However this situation is becoming more blurred as other plant varieties and genetic traits are introduced. Insect resistant rice has illegally entered the market in China, as has GM virus resistant papaya in Malaysia. So called stacked genes are entering the market as cotton, maize and other crops are developed with both insect and herbicide resistance.
3.3.3 Where?
The main concentration of this technology remains in the Americas, both North and South. The USA accounts for 59%; Argentina 20%; Canada 6%; Brazil 6%, China 5%, Paraguay 2% and South Africa around 1%. This is indeed a rather parochial global revolution. Hence the drive to force GMOs on Africa and the rest of the developing world, threatens to exacerbate not reduce the North/ South divide.
4 Protecting Life: Resistance to Bio-colonialism.
What is the political situation globally and regionally?
4.1 The global situation: A novel challenge to humanity and its response; The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.
Extensive international pressure has brought into being what is known as the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (CBP), a UN mandated device to regulate the transboundary movement of what are defined as living modified organisms. The CBP is part of the Rio Declaration and its Convention on Biological Diversity.
Despite the accession of the CBP in 2004 it remains a weak instrument that sets a minimum of regulation. It does however enable stricter national interpretation. The CBP has been compromised by ongoing obstruction by the US and its proxies, who continue to oppose meaningful international regulation of GMOs. The US has refused to join this treaty and constantly undermines even the minimum intentions of its implementation.
4.2 The global social justice movement.
In response to these challenges, a global movement has come into being, drawn from civil society, regulators, scientists, academics; faith based groups and social activists and commentators. This global social justice movement was instrumental in lobbying for the CBP.
Analysis of this movement shows that any claims that it represents an anti-globalisation alliance are unfounded. It has clearly indicated, across global boundariers, just how the global citizenry wish globalisation to be managed. Demands for a human-centric development model promoting the inter-dependence of the people and ecosystems of the world are paramount. This is diametrically opposed to the tenets of the so-called New World order, giving some hint at just why this debate has been so polarised.
The social justice movement feels the tools of international commerce - WTO, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements such as AGOA and EU-SADC - are deeply biased and compromised. They largely pursue an agenda threatening to repeat historical cycles of dependency imposed by the dominant economic powers upon developing nations. Agricultural subsidisation within the OECD remains well over US$300 billion per annum, more than the GDP of Africa.
The reality is that independence and self-sufficiency do not provide lucrative business opportunities but instead provide essential local and regional resources. The increasingly homogenised global agricultural system places more importance on luxury export commodities than it does on people feeding themselves and their families.
4.3 International alliances dealing with the challenges.
Just as there are business and political alliances pushing the agenda of Big Biotech, there is a counterweight of informed people from all sectors. However there is one big difference; industry has massive resources that it has no qualms at mobilising to drive its agenda. The public, despite winning the war of minds, is deeply constrained by a lack of resources to counter the enormity of the campaign to control the commodification of life on earth.
Despite claims by the proponents of Big Biotech that opponents in this region are in some way the proxies of vested interests, driving some ill defined, hidden agenda, Southern Africans have clearly demonstrated themselves to be some of the most objective analysts.
5 What is the reality in the SADC region in particular?
The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region has seen a profound and open debate about both the science and the ideology. The discussions that took place during and after the rejection of GM food aid by several nations in the region, particularly in Zambia, showed a willingness to examine all of the issues and to move above unsubstantiated and ideologically driven rhetoric.
5.1 The OAU and The ‘African position’.
Africa has long held a cautious view of this technology and under the old Organisation of African Unity (OAU) the so-called ‘African Position’ was almost unanimously adopted. The African position is defined under the African Model law . Its full name is The African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources In Relation to International Law and Institutions. It draws from the Convention on Biological Diversity and is compatible with other international instruments.
The African Model law, accepted by the OAU, was finalised in May 2001 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by 89 participants representing 35 African countries. At its 74th Ordinary Session convened in Lusaka, Zambia in July 2001, the OAU Council of Ministers endorsed the Model Law. Following this, a special advisory forum convened on behalf of the African Union has reiterated the need to adopt this biosafety regime for Africa. The African Model Law is a globally important mechanism in negotiations around biosafety and protection of intellectual property rights. It gives explicit recognition of indigenous and community and national rights to traditional knowledge and resources.
5.2 NEPAD and biotechnology.
While most SADC countries have taken a precautionary position as far as biotechnology is concerned, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) - driven largely by resource rich nations such as South Africa and Nigeria, both of which have taken a more pro biotech position - is rather more receptive to both biotechnology in general and towardsof GMOs specifically.
NEPAD has been criticised as having failed to broadly engage and instead supports an economic and social vision removed from the grassroots reality of the majority of Africans. This perspective is somewhat supported by analysis of the African Panel on Biotechnology announced in July 2005. While some precautionary voices are there, notably Tewolde Egziabher of Ethiopia, the panel as a whole tends more towards neo-liberal models of development.
It is crucial that this panel be informed and actively engaged by mandated civil society organisations.
5.3 Regulatory models and pressures.
There are two primary external groups influencing the adoption of biosafety laws and regulations in this region.
5.3.1 The US-inspired model.
The USAID-funded Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) and its sub-unit, The Southern Africa Regional Biosafety programme (SARB) has been cited as an instrument of bio-colonialism. Its other funders include the US Departments of State and Agriculture (who has interests in patents on terminator technology amongst others) as well as commercial entities such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred.
These have had direct influence on local agendas regarding Biotechnology adoption. According to USAID, the objective of SARB is to provide the "regulatory foundation to support field testing of genetically engineered products.”
5.3.2 The UN model (UNEP-GEF).
The second influence is the process driven by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), in association with the Global Environment Fund (GEF). The UN is providing this service under its obligations as contained in the Convention of Biological Diversity and more relevantly, the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.
Whilst there remain some problems with the agenda being driven by the UNEP organised and run programme it is vastly superior to the US driven programme. The shortcoming of the UNEP programme is that it promotes a rather slavish interpretation of the BSP, fulfilling only the minimum stipulations of that protocol, instead of a more stringent interpretation suitable to local, social and environmental demands.
It is critical to remember that the BSP provides a minimum rather than a ceiling for regulation yet many advisors to African governments tend to take the line that the BSP is all that needs to be done. A more stringent application of the principles of the BSP would be preferable and more closely fulfil the intentions of the African Position.
The alternative is to have a system that provides a facilitatory instrument for industry, with inadequate redress mechanisms.
5.4 Regional realities.
Besides South Africa, very limited agricultural biotech has been pursued regionally.
The SADC has issued guidelines to its member states on handling GMOs and asked them to develop national biotechnology policies and biosafety regulatory systems.
SADC policies also support the compliance with the CBP and insist on a right to comply with the BSP principles of Prior Informed Consent and implementation of the notification requirements of the Biosafety Protocol.
5.4.1 South Africa: Regional superpower or proxy?
South Africa developed its own biosafety regime with extensive input from industry and academics involved in the field from the late ‘80s. South Africa’s GMO Act is fraught with problems and it is notoriously difficult and expensive to appeal dubious decisions regarding GM crops, for example. Conflicts of interest have been noted between regulators, advisors and industry players in the South African situation.
South Africa is seen by the US and its corporations as a gateway for the introduction of GMOs into the region. Its regulatory structures are functionally more facilitatory than regulatory and it is the only one of the countries of the region that has enacted Statute law and regulations for biotechnology applications.
South Africa is also, as an economic powerhouse of the region, allied strongly to the interests of the developed world. Through its intervention at international fora such as the G8 it has maintained cordial relations with that neo-colonial rich man’s club. (mens is gramatically incorrect and man’s is plural and indicates the inherent gender bias)
Since its democratic revolution in 1994 South African commercial interests have aggressively moved into Africa, courting comparisons between South Africa and the region and the USA and the world. The rest of the region remains somewhat sceptical about this awakening giant.
The deep irony that South Africa has become a dominant force in the region cannot be ignored, especially given its strongly supportive policies of Biotechnology generally and specifically of GMOs. South Africa is instrumental in driving biotechnology research in the region. It is the only nation that has consistently failed to acknowledge the African Position as a valid point of departure.
Despite an increasingly strong voice of civil society around the biotechnology debate in South Africa commercial interests continue to enjoy a far closer relationship with the State than does the citizenry. The bio-politics of South Africa remains ambivalent and fluid.
5.4.2 Other examples from the SADC region
Zimbabwe has an ongoing research programme, active at both tertiary and research levels, as well as through commercial and NGO programmes. Most of these programmes are aimed at resolving some fundamental agricultural problems using first and second generation biotechnology. Despite some trials, GM crops have not yet been adopted. Zimbabwe adopted biosafety regulations in 1998 and the National Biosafety Committee was set up in 1999. Despite having this in place, the Zimbabwean government came out strongly against the import of whole grain during the food shortages in 2002. The difficulties now facing Zimbabwe further threaten its biosafety, which basically operates in abeyance. It is likely that significant GM contamination has occurred in Zimbabwe through two routes; the import of South African Grain and of internationally sourced grain. It is felt that GM proponents are reluctant to discourage such contamination of the international trading system.Botswana is moving toward completion of its biosafety regime, established with the assistance of the UNEP-GEF programme. Botswana has expressed concern about imports of GM contaminated grain possibly entering the country through or from South Africa. This grain is mainly imported as cattle feed and as both of these countries are major exporters of beef to the EU, there is a risk to these markets from GM contamination. Botswana has acceded to the CBP. Despite this, the US government was reported as encouraging further investigation and adoption of this technology, in a pattern repeated throughout the continent. Botswana has limited resources available to aggressively pursue this technology yet it does have the means to track cross border contamination.Lesotho has adopted a biosafety regime as of 2002, yet has inadequte ability to implement any meaningful oversight of transboundary movement of GMOs. The Lesotho regime is also based on the UNEP-GEF model but given its inability to monitor contamination, the situation in this nation is far from satisfactory. It can safely be claimed that Lesotho has failed to live up to its obligations under the BSP, which it has ratified.
Namibia passed a national biosafety policy in 1999. It has a National Biosafety Committee and draft regulations but has little facility to monitor or oversee the meaningful regulation of transboundary GMO movement. Some limited research in GM is underway. Namibia is co-operating closely with the UNEP-GEF process. Like Botswana, Namibia has insisted that grain imports from South Africa be certified GM free because of the possible impact on their beef export business to the EU. Namibia has acceded to the BSP but has limited resources to manage its obligations. This may explain why its national biosafety advisory committee rejected the import of GM grain in 2002, and demanded its replacement with wheat.Zambia is an interesting case study and its real position has been somewhat misstated in extensive media coverage, primarily emanating from pro-biotech sources. However a healthy debate has occurred across Zambian society. Zambia’s precautionary position adopted during the 2002 drought - when it refused to import any GM grain - resulted in indignant responses that served only to muddy the water. Zambia had insufficient real capacity to monitor the effects of GM grain imports, from an agricultural, health or trade perspective. That said, some work has been undertaken in Zambia with GM crops, both legally and illegally. The University of Zambia and the pro-GM Biotechnology Outreach Society of Zambia have worked with both Dutch and South African institutions researching GM cassava and maize. Illegal trials of GM maize were reported in 2001 . This latter case influenced the precautionary position taken in 2002. Zambia has a draft biosafety regime and a National Biosafety Committee as well as a National Environmental law, but the latter has no regulation of GMOs. Capacity for oversight of GMOs is, as elsewhere in the region, weak. The country has also signed the BSP.
5.5 External Demands: The implications of regulatory structures.
Analysing the regulatory situation in the region, it becomes clear that significant infrastructural demands have been made by the introduction of national regulatory regimes. These are concurrent with external demands to reduce state funding of agricultural programmes under HIPC and World Bank structural adjustment programmes.
Given the cost implications of instituting regulatory structures - coupled to the fact that the primary beneficiaries are presently the GE transnational corporations, international grain traders and other vested interests - it is worthwhile considering further independent research on this matter. Public subsidisation of neo-liberal market policies by financially stressed developing nations must be interrogated. A policy of ‘user pays’ ought to be implemented for GMO programmes in this region.
We must analyse whether the present system subsidises, supports or insulates external corporations from risk. It is unacceptable that financially constrained governments are forced to support these interests with insufficient democratic oversight.
5.6 Sectorial role-players and capacity.
One word encapsulates the issues regarding biotechnology in the region: Capacity. There is little local research capacity; there is an inadequate regional network to fulfil even the minimum criteria of the CBP; civil society is not fully engaged because of capacity issues, dealing instead with immediate problems such as HIV and AIDS and poverty; there is poor regulatory framework throughout the region.
As far as who has been influential in the debate around biotechnology in Africa, the most important influence has doubtless been that of big commercial interests, who have more than sufficient capacity to do so.
There has nevertheless been a healthy debate across the region around the relevance of biotechnology and its applications. Even promoters of agricultural biotechnology have conceded that GM crops are at best a partial response to the challenges of feeding the people of Africa. However it is far simpler to groundlessly claim that GM crops are an essential tool to provide food security for Africa than it is to properly analyse the real challenges of improving food security throughout the region.
Besides regulators, commercial interests and academic institutions, many other organisations have been active in analysing the issues: NGOs, faith based groups, farmers associations, consumer organisations and importantly, traditional healers and the holders of our traditional knowledge systems, who are reliant upon natural resource systems. Numerous positions have been taken by various groups, mostly dealing with GM crops but several have examined the broader biotech implications for Africa.
It is notable when examining these positions that civil society has been unambiguous about its rejection of GM agriculture and biotechnology more generally. Biotechnology is, after all, the sobriquet under which GM is being pushed into Africa. This is a pity because there is much that is useful about biotechnology, as we have seen. This backlash can be squarely laid at the feet of the US and its corporate interlocutors who have and continue to aggressively force their products on the region.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Africa as a megabiodiverse region.
While what we have seen over the past decade has primarily involved the creation of a suitable climate to import a first world technology into Africa - hard nosed salesmanship dressed up as altruism - the stakes are even higher and extend way beyond the GM food fight, important as that is.
Africa, along with South America and South East Asia, represents one of the world’s major regions of megabiodiversity. . If we accept that this biodiversity lies at the heart of a new, third wave of exploitation, it becomes clear that it is not so much what is being sold to us that is of concern, but what we possess by way of biodiversity. This megabiodiversity is an attractive resource for those controlling the technology and finances yet its ownership remains largely unprotected.
We must also consider the fact that as the cradle of humankind we possess a certain moral weight to dispute ownership of any aspects of the human genome. If we do accept the African Position we could even extend it to include a moratorium on any claim to ownership of any aspect of human life, insisting that this is our common heritage. Accepting ownership of life involves accepting the enclosure of the final global commons, the commons of humanity. Rejecting ownership of aspects of our human genome can also dispel racist notions as genetics provides conclusive proof as to our sameness, not our illusory, external differences.
6.2 Biosafety and protection of our resources is up to us.
If the future of the global economy does in fact have biodiversity and biological information at its heart, Africa is already in a weak position, having accepted external regulatory strictures of first world institutions such as the WTO and the World Bank. Until such time as Africa, either through the AU or outside it, has put in place a meaningful biosafety and biological protection regime, covering all aspects of this emerging technology, not just GM agriculture, Africa stands to compromise the benefits that are its due for its careful protection of natural resources and knowledge. The African Model Law and the African Model Law on Biosafety provide an ideal framework from which to build such a regime.
It is critical that these important issues continue to be interrogated by all sectors of society. Biotechnology has opened up a whole new way of doing business, of laying claim to the last frontier of ownership, the ownership of life. Africa has clearly shown that it has the ability, the people and the tools to engage in this debate. All that remains is for each of us to do something about it.
7 Further reading.
7.1 Internet.
1) ActionBioscience - http://www.actionbioscience.org/index.html
Deals comprehensively with biodiversity, environment, biotechnology, genomics, evolution, new frontiers and evolution.
2) African Centre for Biosafety – http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/
This website gives the best analysis of Biosafety throughout Africa.
3) Bioneers - http://www.bioneers.org/
Visionary and practical solutions for the problems faced by our planet.
4) Biowatch – http://www.biowatch.org.za
Leading South African Organisation dealing with biodiversity and biosafety.
5) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety - http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/default.aspx
Gives a complete rundown on the state of play around this important protocol.
6) ETC group (Action group on erosion, technology and concentration) - http://www.etcgroup.org/
Organisation dealing with the convergence of technology and power.
7) Grain - http://www.grain.org/front/
Organisation active in Africa, dealing with sustainable development and control over genetic resources, intellectual property.
8) GM Watch – http://gmwatch.org
Best news site for media releases on GM around the world, well archived.
9) The Institute of Science in Society - http://www.i-sis.org.uk
Analysis of GMOs and emerging technologies.
10) Physicians and scientists for the responsible application of science and technology - http://www.psrast.org/
Award winning website giving technical comment and information.
11) Precautionary Principle Project - http://www.pprinciple.net/
A website giving good analysis of the precautionary principle.
12) Links to just about everyone involved in the field of biotechnology from Greenpeace to Monsanto, with thanks from Totnes genetic group, UK - http://www.togg.org.uk/gmo_links.html
7.2 Print publications.
1) Seeds of Deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of Genetically Engineered foods. Smith, Jeffrey. Yes! Books. 2003.
ISBN: 0-9729665-8-7
2) Brave New Worlds – genetics and the human experience. Appleyard, Brian. Harper Collins. 2000.
ISBN: 000-655144-0
3) Changing the Nature of Nature – What you need to know about Genetically Engineered Food. Teitel, Martin; Wilson, Kimberley A. Vision Paperbacks. 2000.
ISBN; 1 901250 55 5
4) Genetic Engineering, Dream or Nightmare – The brave new world of bad science and big business. Ho, Mae-Wan. Gateway Books. 1998.
ISBN: 1 85860 051 0
5) GM Foods - The facts and fiction. Hurtado, Maria Elena. Consumers International. 2000.
ISBN: 967 9973 88 3
6) The Biotech Century - Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World. Jeremy Rifkin. Tarcher. 1998.
ISBN: 0 87477 909 X
7) The Language of Genes. Steve Jones. Flamingo. 1993.
ISBN: 0 00 654676 5
7.3 On Agriculture in the developing world.
7) From Feast to Famine – official cures and grassroots remedies to Africas food crisis. Rau, Bill. Zed Books. 1991.
ISBN: 0 86232 927 2
8) Living Farms – encouraging sustainable smallholders in Southern Africa. Whiteside, Martin. Earthscan publications. 1998.
ISBN: 1 85383 590 0
9) Regenerating Agriculture – politics and practice for sustainability and self reliance. Pretty, Jules. Earthscan Publications. 1995
1 85383 152 0
8 Footnotes
Back To Ekogaia Home Page
|
