Will Ethiopia be a springboard or a stonewall for GM crops in Africa?

BY TESFAYE SHIFERAW
As a systems agronomist with substantial experience in the Consortium of International Agricultural Research centers (CGIAR) and national research institutions in sub-Saharan Africa, I have followed with interest the recent controversy around plantings of transgenic crops in Ethiopia.

Until 2015, the country took a vocal stand against genetically modified (GM) crops, underlined by its strict proclamation on biosafety in 2009 (Proclamation No. 655/2009).

The regulation was so inflexible that a special permission was required to transit any “modified organisms” through Ethiopian customs.

Six years later, the country loosened its restrictions in an amended proclamation (Proclamation No. 896/2015). The latter proclamation allows ‘the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) cotton and confined field research on GM maize and enset (Ensete ventricosum), a food plant whose cultivation is endemic to Ethiopia.

As a result, Bt-cotton has been under widespread production and the country has lately issued a five-year permit to conduct confined field trails on drought-tolerant and pest-resistant GM maize. GM maize trails were successfully conducted in 2019 by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

In a recent report, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognized Ethiopia’s commitment to implementing the amended protocol. Although debates about gene-modified organisms (GMOs) in Ethiopia started immediately after the first prohibitive proclamation in 2009, they were low-key and mostly pro-GMO (Fig.). Severe criticisms against GMOs exploded following USDA’s accolades for Ethiopia’s relaxation of rules.

As debates intensified following the USDA report, rather than Ethiopia’s decision per se, one explanation is that the controversy is driven by paranoia that the United States is using Ethiopia as biotech strategic entry point to expand its GMO portfolio in Africa.

Anti-biotech activists often amplify these kinds of strong rhetorical statements, which have a potential to entrench throughout the continent. As regulatory systems in most African countries are grappling with the GMO dilemma, Ethiopia’s final regulatory stance on biotech products will have broader implications.

Given Ethiopia’s diplomatic muscle in the region, this forms a turning point for the fate of biotech products all over the continent and beyond. Because Ethiopia is Africa’s diplomatic epicenter, its endorsement or dismissal of GMOs may have a strong influence on opinion across the entire continent.

Although leaders in Ethiopia have been reluctant to listen to public opinion — the government has been known for its elitist and technocratic approaches to policy-making — the chorus of voices opposed to GM crops has been consistent.

The debates have the potential to preempt interests, concerns, hopes and fears of Ethiopian communities concerning GM crops. If GM crop opponents eventually challenge Ethiopian policymakers and restore the prohibitive protocol on GM crops, expansion of biotech products will certainly be halted. Conversely, the public uproar may jumpstart civic participation in future policy decisions.

Furthermore, Ethiopia hosts 11 CGIAR centers. As these centers strictly abide by the host country’s biosafety protocols, the reintroduction of prohibitive regulations would present daunting challenges for biotech research. Both national and CGIAR breeders routinely have had to navigate extensive bureaucratic red tape to exchange seed materials, even for conventional breeding.

CIMMYT, which is among the leading global research centers on maize and wheat improvement, frequently exchanges genetic materials between its global research stations and partners.

Although CIMMYT does not have a pro-GMO or anti-GMO stance, prohibitive host country regulations limit options for its research in crop biotech and genetic improvement.

All of the CGIAR centers have been operating under similar challenges. With this in mind, Ethiopia’s 2015 relaxed regulation has reinvigorated biotech research in the country.

Anti-GMO efforts may not necessarily force the government to reinstate its strict biosafety regulation of 2009. Nonetheless, campaigns decrying GM crops can influence public perceptions, which in turn can lead to changes in policy, stalling the uptake, implementation and application of biotech products. In addition, misinformation and competing interests inevitably complicate how biotech research fairs in Ethiopia (and elsewhere in Africa).

Postmodernist anti-GMO activists in Ethiopia are attempting to peg the United States as a bogeyman with a hidden agenda of facilitating corporate interests that seek to control the seeds of a food staple. If such campaigns succeed, not only GMOs but also other advances in biotech will face an uphill battle.

If, by contrast, Ethiopian scientists and enthusiastic technocrats can rise above the mudslinging, take a pragmatic case-by-case approach to crop approvals and build biosafety infrastructure that accommodates new agricultural technologies, the country can realize its potential as a springboard for the advancement of biotechnology R&D on this continent.

The Ethiopian Herald February 14/2021