The majority of genetically modified (GM) crops are now cultivated in
the developing world. In 2014, around 53% of
the 182m hectares (nearly two million square kilometres) of GM crops were grown
in these countries.
In reality, though, the “developing world” is a catch-all for
many different countries. Brazil and Argentina are way out in front, planting
nearly 70m hectares of GM soy, maize and cotton. India has 11.6m hectares of GM
cotton alone. China has a broader spread but much smaller quantities, while in
sub-Saharan Africa, there are 2.7m hectares of GM soy, maize and cotton in
South Africa, and 0.5m hectares of cotton in Burkina Faso. Bangladesh is the
latest addition to the so-called GM nations.
By far the most common GM crops are those that can tolerate
herbicides. They suit the large “mono-cropped” farming systems found in the US,
Argentina and Brazil. Among smallholdings, notably in India, China and South
Africa, the biggest GM crop is Bt cotton, which incorporates a
toxin that kills pests. It has been at the centre of the debate about the
extent to which GM can help the poor.
Poorer countries might also benefit from crops being developed
to resist drought, heat, frost and salty soil – drought-tolerant maize is seen as a promising answer to
“climate-smart” farming in Africa, for instance. Also promising are crops with
enhanced nutritional value, such as vitamin A-enriched golden rice. These remain in development, though.
Good for the poor?
One big problem with GM in the developing world is that
successes claimed for certain crops already in farmers’ fields have become
conflated with expectations around other different technologies not yet ready
for release. This has happened with Bt cotton and golden rice, for instance,
and has helped to create the false impression that golden
rice is ready for market.
Bt cotton’s own benefits to the poor meanwhile look shaky on
closer examination. In the most detailed study to date on smallholder farms in
India, China and South Africa in 2009, Dominic Glover of the Institute of
Development Studies found that much of its
performance depends on the locally adapted cotton varieties with which it needs
to be crossed.
Good yield also needs favourable soils and irrigation – “the
very things the poorest farmers typically lack”, according to Glover. This all
requires appropriate investments in infrastructure and institutions. He
concluded that while some farmers have benefited, “others, especially smaller
and poorer farmers have not”. Success depended on much more than “new genes
inserted into a crop plant”.
Nevertheless a roll call of high-profile champions based in
richer countries continue to push the idea that GM crop technology is
inherently pro-poor, held back only by overburdensome regulation and irrational
opposition. Their opponents argue fiercely to the
contrary.
Opposition to GM crops in developing countries is often
misunderstood in this hostile climate. Contrary to popular belief, local
resistance is not coordinated “by Greenpeace” but grounded in local realities.
Probably the best known was Zambia’s 2002 rejection of GM food aid during a
food crisis. Where global GM debates revolve around health and environmental
risk, Zambia’s decision was primarily about maintaining control over
agriculture.
The New Alliance
In truth, debates about whether GM crops or any single
technology are “good for the poor” or can “feed the world” are becoming tired.
They tend to discuss GM technologies as if they can be isolated from the wider
socioeconomic and political context. In Mexico, for example, smallholder
farmers’ experience of GM maize has been shaped by the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and policies favouring market liberalisation, and
reductions in state assistance.
Similarly in India, Bt cotton uptake has occurred against a
backdrop of market liberalisation. Farmers have had to cope with fluctuating
prices and the challenges of accessing credit as state subsidies have been
removed. Crucially, this has all coincided
with changes to agrarian social structures that have meant that unlike in the
past, these new risks have fallen on individual households rather than
communities. All this is lost on a globalised GM crop debate in which both
sides have used the tragedy of farmer
suicides to “land a few blows”.
For much of sub-Saharan Africa, the context is the G7 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in
Africa (known as the “New Alliance”). This cooperation framework was
launched by USAID and aims to “accelerate responsible investment in African
agriculture and lift 50m people out of poverty by 2022”. This is supposed to
help smallholders in particular, but in reality it looks to be about
facilitating the regulatory wishes of agribusiness.
The Mozambique country
agreement, for example, commits to “systematically ceasing to distribute
free and unimproved [non-commercial] seeds to farmers except in emergencies”.
While not technology specific, this clearly advantages producers of
commercially produced GM or hybrid seeds over local varieties.
Rather than endlessly debate the pros and cons of GM in
isolation, we need to turn our attention to these framework agreements. If GM
crops are to be extended in developing countries in ways that benefit the poor,
paying close attention to international development and investment frameworks
currently under formation is just as important as understanding the relative
merits of technologies themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment