In 2011 Kenya caused a storm in some circles by for the first time
making legal the importation of gene-modified maize seed for
consumption. This was arguably a step that could have been predicted
years before, given the several (known) trials of various GM crops that
have been taking place there for years.
In the new environment
of a major anti-GM crops barrier having been breached, some of those
trials are close to a stage where their products will soon be on the
market.
The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute is one of the
organizations that have been undertaking testing of GM crops, with the
first GM maize seeds expected to be available to farmers by 2014.
Kenya’s
The Nation newspaper reported KARI official Simion Gichuki as saying
the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) Project was expected to
increase yields from the current less than one tonne per hectare to as
much as five tonnes per hectare.
Unfortunately, in almost all
stories citing yield figures like this, it is not mentioned whether
these projected increases are to be solely from the farmers switching
from their present seeds to the fancy new seeds, or whether these
figures also assume all other production conditions being ideal.
Obviously
the test field conditions of KARI will be vastly different from the
real world cultivation realities of most small scale Kenyan maize
farmers. When all other conditions (planting date, water, soil
fertility, fertilizer, pesticides, etc) are optimized as under field
test conditions like presumably exist at KARI, a four of five yield
might be realizable; even more. But if the only change a farmer makes in
his cultivation conditions is to switch seeds, s/he is obviously not
going to achieve the same yields as seen on the KARI maize test fields!
For claims of four or five fold yield increases to make sense, it is
necessary to know if the test conditions used to cite them are those of a
‘typical’ Kenyan maize farmer, or whether they are idealized test
conditions.
Apart from adopting a new variety of seed, if all
the other real-world conditions of a farmer remain the same (erratic and
declining rain, poor soil and no supplementation/fertilizer/pesticides,
etc), are four to five-fold yield increases still to be expected?
Any improvement of yields would be welcome, even if it is not the four
or five-fold, but one suspects that some of the figures given without
context and explanation provided are a case of over-selling a product.
One also can’t help but get the impression that the claims of ‘testing’
these GM seeds are more a public relations exercise than a scientific
enterprise. The political/regulatory decision to market them has already
been made. The hoped-for yield increases are apparently already known.
So when Dr. Gethi says, “But the genetically modified maize
will first be subjected to trials,” it seems to imply that there is
still a possibility of them not being adopted if the results of those
'trials' warranted it.
But everything else that is said makes
it clear that whatever is still being ‘trialed’ is certainly not going
to have any impact on their coming to market. Clearly all that is being
conducted in the ‘trials’ are a few small mopping up operations.
It
is also said the government plant approval body will also evaluate the
seeds for their ‘suitability.’ What are the chances of that body finding
the seeds ‘unsuitable?’
What does it matter now, one may ask?
In the Kenyan scenario, where the once difficult hurdle of government
and/or public acceptability of GM crops seems to have been overcome, it
probably doesn’t matter much. But it is this kind of sly ambiguity in
giving figures and stating facts that makes many opponents of GM
technology suspect that the ‘trials’ are actually no more than a
marketing ‘conspiracy’ on behalf of American and a few European seed
companies, rather than a great new innovation to turn poor farmers’
fortunes around.
Education assistant minister Ayiecho Olweny
said, “Let us not pay a lot of attention to the activists; they will
distract us from achieving food sustainability through such a modern
technology.”
GM seeds have come to Kenya and there is clearly no
going back, whatever the ‘trials’ may or may not show. As the biggest
economy in the region, Kenya’s decision will have far-reaching effects
on neighboring countries.
South Africa, the continent’s biggest
producer of GM crops, is surrounded by several countries that are still
reticent about accepting GM technology. But much of their resistance has
been effectively neutralized by their large-scale importation of South
African processed foods which contain GM ingredients.
If GM
cultivation is a competitive advantage, those of South Africa’s
neighbors that maintain bans on the cultivation of biotech crops find
themselves in an awkward position. That is that they prohibit the
growing of crops which their citizens are already eating anyway.
Furthermore, those countries’ farmers and agri-processors find
themselves unable to compete against the multiple advantages their South
African counterparts enjoy over them, to which can be added the higher
(though disputed by some) yields of GM technology.
Part of the
result has been that it is already struggling farmers and processors in
South Africa’s neighboring countries who are now putting pressure on
their governments to ‘equalize’ the playing field by allowing them to
also grow GM crops.
Given Kenya’s position as the dominant
economy in eastern Africa, it is very likely that its embrace of GM
technology will have a similar effect on its neighbors.
African Agriculture