Museveni recruits GMO critic as advisor

By Charles Kazooba

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni has absorbed into his government a renowned critic of biotechnology as his advisor on research and information. 

Morrison Rwakakamba, a popular researcher, started work in the Office of the President as a Special Presidential Assistant mid August this year. His work will contribute heavily in public policy formulation and change.

The new presidential advisor has publicly denounced the use of biotech in crop breeding, which technology he claims will distort the agriculture economics of the country in his campaign to influence debate on the Biotech and Biosafety Bill tabled before parliament.

Rwakakamba has in the past claimed that the draft law seeks to spread Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Uganda.

“From the basis of discourse I have been following, millions of Ugandans, and especially small holder farmers, instead expected the Hon. Minister to present a bill aimed at detecting, stopping and destroying GMOs,” he says.

“Evidence that shows GMOs will harm economic livelihoods of many small holder farmers, downgrade health of millions of citizens, increase hazards to environment, compromise indigenous, cultural and traditions of our society and   cripple strategic economic interests of Uganda is all over the place – I will delve into this in future.”

But these views were expressed before his appointment as a public servant in President Museveni’s administration. Today, he appears much more willing to listen and understand the proponents of biotechnology.

“It’s not easy for Conventional ecological agriculture to survive together with biotechnology. The co-existence should first be clearly studied. Secondly, my argument is about economics. Biotech isn’t good for our strategic objectives. The demand in the market is for organic matters,” said Mr Rwakakamba, adding, “I also want us to pass the biotech and biosafety law, but for different reasons.” 

It is possible that with time Mr Rwakakamba’s hard stance on GMOs will soften especially after engaging the President in a serious discussion on the matter. Mr Rwakakamba is yet to share his views with the President Museveni, who is a staunch advocate for science and is said to have initiated the process of establishing infrastructure for biotechnology as early as 2000.

When GM crops were first commercially released in 1996, critics argued that they would only benefit industrialized countries. In 2012 emerging economies overtook industrialized countries as the main adopters of GM crops.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, from 1996 to 2011 transgenic crops added $98.2-billion to the value of global agricultural output, over 50 per cent of which accrued to emerging economies.

In an earlier rebuttal to government’s campaign for the enactment of a favourable biotech and biosafety law, Mr Rwakakamba argued that if all arable land was put to good use in the country the use of biotech would be irrelevant.

He said: “In spite of adjuncts of Climate change, Uganda is still feeding itself at a time when its arable land utilization is below 50 per cent. Indeed over 80 per cent of farmers are defacto conservation and organic farmers. If our conservation practices are accentuated through a reformed budget architecture that puts more money in agriculture – we can feed the region and world without engaging in any form of genetic manipulation.”  

“Importantly, all GMO crusaders ignore the core economic questions. Where will Uganda sell its GMO products? Will transformation from an Organic into a GMO economy give Uganda a competitive advantage? Available numbers illuminate a different pathway from what GMO proponents propose. For example, datasets from the International Trade Center (ITC), a United Nations outfit –show that untapped Organics market for agricultural products in Europe is $60 billion, Japan $11 billion and US $41 billion. So why would Uganda want to run away from this market?” he said.

Rwakakamba until his latest appointment was Chief Executive Officer of Agency for Transformation. He has worked at Uganda National Farmers Federation at manager policy research and advocacy. He was also chief executive officer Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industries before joining Twaweza, an East African region organization focusing on social change as country manager of Uganda.

How Mark Lynas swayed East Africans on GMOs

How Mark Lynas swayed East Africans on GMOs

By Charles Kazooba

He may be seen as a traitor by his former colleagues in the anti-genetically modified foods camp but his new mission to re-write the damage done by his former movement appears to be succeeding. 

Mark Lynas, a journalist-cum-climate change activist, who has in past successfully de-campaigned the use of GM technology in crop planting, has embarked on a global tour to boost biotechnology he once reviled most, reversing his earlier position.

His East African tour of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya-the newest hosts of biotechnology research and development, is billed as one his most successful sojourns.

Sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he gave lectures in the three countries on GM foods under the auspices of Open Forum of Agricultural Biotechnology in July.

In Kampala, Uganda where there has been vehement opposition of GMOs from food activists, he made a moving presentation that swayed even those that had little hope in biotech.

“I have a moral responsibility to put right some of the damage I have done.  I am a small potato farmer in the United Kingdom but my garden is affected by blight and since GMOs are not allowed I remain at loss,” Mark, also a British author of several books on global warming including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, told an audience of scientists, farmers, the media, students and Members of the Uganda Parliament at Makerere University during the first biosafety conference on July 29.

Mark said he was sorry he had maligned genetically modified crops; sorry that he had helped start the anti-GM movement and sorry he had demonized the technology.

“I myself am culpable of the misleading information. That was a long time ago, and I have apologized for that. I was the original instigator of the anti-GMOs crusade. I personally destroyed GMO crops in the fields with activist groups,” he said.

In his presentation, “Unmasking the global conspiracies against agricultural biotechnology advancement in developing countries: what way out of Africa?” during the conference, Mark said there was strong scientific consensus that GM foods were entirely safe.

“There have been several hundred safety studies now on GM crops around the world, the vast majority clearly supporting the scientific consensus. And people in the US, South Africa and many other countries have consumed something like 2-3 trillion meals containing GM ingredients with not a single substantiated case of any negative health effects, not even so much as a headache,” he said.

He said he prioritized his East African tour because of the alarming situation—in Uganda where activists vowed to block a biotech and safety law under scrutiny by parliament and in Kenya, where there is a ban on importation of GMO products.

“Staple crops like cassava and banana here in Uganda and elsewhere in the region are under severe threat from new diseases which could wipe out much of the domestic food supply. Scientists here in Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere, in partnership with international collaborators at the best universities and plant science institutes in the world have come a long way towards developing crops which will be able to resist these diseases,” he explained.

While in Kenya, Mark was asked to clarify whether GMOs were another weapon being used by neo-colonialists to control the global market.

“I can tell you that if you look at the world only through the eyes of a victim, and you believe that everyone is an enemy and yourself should never change, and then you will indeed end up marginalized and exploited.

So my message to you is to be properly anti-colonial and believe in yourselves, he said, adding, “The way out for Africa is not to dance to the tune of others, and to ignore the conspiracy theories from abroad which the professional NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have downloaded from the internet.”  

Tanzanians, during Mark’s public lecture peddled lots of myths about GMOs causing cancer or taking genes from fish and putting them in tomatos, or making seeds sterile or whatever.

He encouraged African scientists to spread their pro-GMO gospel to Europe and America-the origins of GMOs-in order to garner global support for their research in Africa.

“Please come and tell the British public just how important crops like maize, banana and cassava are, and about how they can help address the challenge of food security in their disease-resistant and drought-tolerant varieties. It would also be useful for you to see that Europe is not a successful model to follow. European policy on biotechnology is in fact in a state of near collapse. Nothing has moved for over 10 years, and now major companies are pulling out,” said Mark.

Who is Mark Lynas?

Mark Lynas is a visiting research associate at Oxford University and environmental campaigner. His reputation and knowledge on climate change later earned him a position of advisor to the President of Maldives on climate change. A British author, he has written several books on global warming including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which was made into a movie by National Geographic. Other titles are; 'High Tide' and, his latest, the ‘The God Species: How the Planet can Survive the Age of Humans’

Lynas first heard about the notion of genetically modifying crops in a Brighton squat in early 1996, at a meeting of about six activists that was lead by Jim Thomas, a campaigns director for Greenpeace. Lynas lead the early workshops that spread the message further. 

A critical fracture between Lynas and his movement occurred after London's 2000 May Day riots, which he helped organize. “Everything we'd been trying to achieve was undermined by all the violence and window smashing. It just alienated people. I thought I'd be honest about it. Everyone looked at me in complete horror, shock and contempt," he later confessed.

 “So, contrary to what some of his critics have said, I applaud his conversion and urge him to continue his education. He has discovered high school biology. Now it’s time to go to college,” John Vandermeer of Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan says of Mark.

East African Parliament plans superior regional legislation for GMOs

By Charles Kazooba

The East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) plans to come up with a superior biotechnology law that will regulate the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In line with the East African Community Treaty, the law will supersede partner states legislations.

Following a petition to the East African Parliament by the civil society community to look into Uganda’s draft biotechnology and biosafety draft law the regional lawmakers promised to first of all harmonize regulation of GMOs in the region and then come up with a superior law.

The feeling is that if efforts at harmonization were not made sooner, additional legislation to bring the adopted national policies into harmony will be required at a later date, increasing associated costs.

Patricia Hajabakiga, a member of EALA and Chair of the Rwanda Chapter, said that there is already a committee at the regional level discussing the both biosafety and biotechnology in order to harmonize ideas.

She said harmonization would be prudent since EAC was transforming into a single customs territory.

The chairperson of the Agriculture, Tourism and Natural Resources committee Ndahayo Isabelle from Burundi said that the EAC must therefore have harmonized policies with regard to food security. She said EALA will develop a law in regard to food security.

The East African Community (EAC) countries, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are at different stages of establishing their national biosafety frameworks yet cooperation across the different countries is important noting the porosity of EA country borders. 

In other words, a GMO released in one country could easily seep into the neighboring territory through formal or traditional seed exchange systems. 

There is general consensus that this is the right time to commence harmonization of regional policies for biotechnology and biosafety to enable development of a coordinated mechanism that exploits synergies amongst and is supported by complementary national frameworks.

The GMOs debate thus invokes mixed feelings from environment, food safety and human health sector policy makers and the general public.

Some activists in East Africa have started lobbying for harsher laws regulating biotechnology in the region but scientists, who are pro-GMOs think otherwise. 

For instance, the pro GMO lobby has started campaigning for review of the Tanzanian law which has a provision of strict liability clause to regulate biotech.

They have been pressing for the abandonment of the ‘precautionary principle’ enshrined in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the removal of the ‘strict liability’ clauses that protect citizens and the environment. 

Under its commitment to the international agreement, Tanzania developed The Environmental Management (Biosafety) Regulations 2009. This covers the procedures for dealing with applications for the testing, risk assessment, release and commercialization of GMOs, including liability for any damage caused by GMOs.

The Tanzanian Biosafety Regulations apply ‘strict liability’ meaning that whoever introduces the GMO shall be automatically liable for any damage caused. The pro GMO lobby wants Tanzania to remove this liability and perhaps replace it with ‘fault based liability’ which would mean that anyone claiming compensation for damage would have to prove that whoever introduced the GMO was somehow at fault.

For example, under the existing strict liability rules, if a farmer’s crop was contaminated by GMO seeds then the farmer could expect to get compensation from whoever imported or introduced the GMO. 

Under the proposed ‘fault based liability’ the farmer would have to prove that the person introducing the GMO was somehow at fault, e.g. that they had failed to follow correct safety procedures.

In Uganda, critics contend that the biosafety bill in its current form will make the country’s food security subservient to the whims of external market forces.

Ms Barbara Karugonjo, a researcher with Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment argues that the objective section of the Ugandan draft law does not make any reference to precautionary principle as enshrined under international obligations in the Cartagena Protocol.

Therefore, abandoning of the precautionary principle reduces liability of multinational companies who would take advantage of the situation and flood the local market with GMO products at the expense of local farmers.

He says that the mere fact that the Bill does not make mention of the precautionary principle defeats the purpose of the proposed legislation to be cautious of emerging technologies.

The Bill also provides for expedited review of an application for research and general release of a GMO approved in another country with comparable ecosystems.

“The impression created by this provision is that Uganda is clearly in a hurry to introduce GMOs without any safety procedures. It is important to note that no two ecosystems are similar and such provisions undermine the ethos of the Cartagena Protocol and places the farmers in severe jeopardy,” he argues.

Third, he adds, the Bill does not provide for compensation to farmers who have been affected by an accidental release of a GMO. The Bill states that a restoration order may be issued where an activity of a person causes damage.

“However, it is silent on who will bear the liability, whether jointly or severally, and does not attach liability to the developer of the GMO,” said Karugonjo.

The Kenyan law is yet to be fully tested. Just recently a Minister banned GMOs following a study done by French researchers and published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, which indicated that rats fed on GM maize, had developed cancerous tumours.

Bu the ban is being contested by Parliament. Three parliamentary committees on health, agriculture, livestock and fisheries and education science and technology said the ban that was announced by former Public Health minister Beth Mugo in November 2012 was illegal.

The MPs said the ban was simply an executive order that was not enforceable in law because it was not published in the Kenya Gazette to make it legally binding.