June 2015

COTTONING ON TO A LIE (PART 1)

Genetically modified cotton will harm, not help, African smallholder farmers. (First of a 2-part article)

By Haidee Swanby

            Cotton is cultivated on about 2.5% of the world’s arable land across 80 countries making it, after wheat, rice, maize and soybeans, one of the most important global crops in terms of land area. It is grown mainly for lint, which can be spun and woven to make cloth. The seeds also yield edible oil used in a variety of foodstuffs and industrial products. Once the oil is extracted the dry meal is used to produce animal feed.

            One hundred countries are involved with cotton imports and exports. China, India, the USA and Pakistan are the major global cotton producers, followed by Brazil and Uzbekistan. Together these countries account for 80% of the world’s cotton, while 28 African countries contribute about 5% to global production. The top five producers on the African continent, between 2007 and 2011, were Burkina Faso, Egypt, Mali, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, who together accounted for 54% of Africa’s total production. Most of Africa’s cotton is produced by smallholder farmers for whom the cotton sector is a vital source of employment and income.

            Genetically modified (GM) cotton has been produced globally for almost two decades, yet up to the present time only three African countries have grown GM cotton on a commercial basis — South Africa in 1997, Burkina Faso in 2008 and Sudan in 2012. According to unverified industry figures these three countries together grew GM cotton on about 616,000 hectares. African governments have been sceptical of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for decades and have played a key role historically in ensuring that international law — the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety — takes a precautionary stance towards genetic engineering in food and agriculture. They have also imposed various restrictions and bans on the cultivation and importation of GMOs, including on GM food aid. But now, almost two decades later, this resistance is crumbling as a number of African countries such as Ghana, Malawi, Swaziland and Cameroon seem set to allow the commercial cultivation of their first GM crop — cotton. Nigeria and Ethiopia are planning to follow suit in the next two to three years and further down the line.

            Some African governments and local cotton producers have high hopes that GM technology will boost African competitiveness in the dog-eat-dog world that characterises the global cotton market. At the moment African cotton productivity is declining — it now stands at only half the world average — while global productivity is increasing. The promise of improving productivity and reducing pesticide use through the adoption of GM cotton is compelling. However, our African leaders and cotton producers need to take a close look at how GM cotton has fared in South Africa and Burkina Faso to date, particularly its socio-economic impact on smallholder farmers. Scrutiny of actual experiences reveals a tragic tale of crippling debt, appalling market prices and a technology prone to failure in the absence of very specific and onerous management techniques, which are not suited to smallholder production. As stated by a farmer during a Malian public consultation on GMOs, "What's the point of encouraging us to increase yields with GMOs when we can't get a decent price for what we already produce?"

            In Malawi, Monsanto has already applied to the government for a permit to commercialise its GM pest resistant cotton, Bollgard II. There has been a strong reaction from civil society to this development and an alliance of organisations has submitted substantive objections. Even Malawi’s cotton industry, the Cotton Development Trust (CDT), has publicly voiced its concerns over a number of issues, including inadequate field trials, the high cost of GM seed and related inputs, and blurred intellectual property arrangements. In addition, CDT has expressed unease over the development of pest resistance and the inevitable applications of herbicide chemicals.

REGIONAL TRADE BODIES TO OPEN THE WAY FOR GMOS

            Regional Economic Communities (RECs), such as the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS), are also key players in readying their Member States for the commercialisation of and trade in GM cotton, through harmonised biosafety policies. The COMESA Policy on Biotechnology and Biosafety was adopted in February 2014 and Member States validated the implementation plan in March 2015. The ECOWAS Biosafety Policy has been through an arduous process for more than a decade now and pronounced conflicts between trade imperatives and safety checks have stalled agreement between stakeholders. However, recent reports indicate that agreement between the Member States and donor parties has been reached and a final draft of the Biosafety Policy will soon be published. Together COMESA and ECOWAS incorporate 34 countries in Africa.

            These regional biosafety policies and laws have been primarily controlled and funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has financially supported an array of African legal experts and scientific bodies, working in collaboration with American experts to craft harmonised regional policies designed to maximise market size and minimise biosafety regulations, such as case-by-case risk assessments and ‘strict liability’ for producers if the technology goes wrong. Within these policies investor profits are high on the priority list while safeguards for human, environmental and socio-economic wellbeing are relegated to mere afterthoughts.

GM COTTON IN BURKINA FASO AND SA: CRIPPLING DEBT AND TECHNOLOGICAL GLITCHES

            Burkina Faso began cultivating pest resistant cotton (known as ‘Bt’ cotton) in 2008 and the media has since been awash with reports of miraculous performance and increased yields. In reality, the cultivation of Bt cotton has been dogged by technical problems for the short time that it has been in production in that country and in June 2015, media reports announced that GM cotton will be gradually reduced over the next three years and then stopped altogether. After only two seasons of cultivation farmers were up in arms because their cotton harvest was downgraded due to short fibres, causing them to lose out on decent prices while having paid for the more expensive GM technology. Many farmers also reported low yields and, amongst other things, this was ascribed to the need to apply very precise doses of fertilisers and pesticides for good yields, a practice that farmers are not used to.

            In 2013/14 Burkina Faso’s largest cotton company, SOFITEX, responsible for the production of about 40% of the national cotton seed production in that country, discontinued the use of FK96, one of the two available Bt cotton seed varieties, due to the short fibres it was producing. This created a shortage of Bt seed in the country.

            The year 2014 also saw the development in some areas of insect resistance to the Bt toxin expressed in GM cotton. This is very surprising in such a short period and is a serious problem because farmers are led to believe that their crops will be protected against certain pests — and they pay extra for that protection. It is not clear if any compensation was given to farmers who experienced crop losses due to product failure.

            The issue of delaying insect resistance in Bt crops is somewhat of a conundrum in smallholder production systems and the biotech industry has yet to develop a workable solution. The standard method over the past 20 years has been to impose a contractual obligation on farmers to plant between 5–20% of their field to non-GM cotton, to create what is known as a ‘refuge’. The refuge provides a habitat in which insects can thrive as they are not exposed to the Bt toxin and therefore do not develop resistance to it. Insects feeding on the Bt crop are killed by the pesticide expressed in that cotton, while insects thriving in the refuge dominate season after season, delaying the onset of resistance.

            Managing ‘refugia’ can be onerous, and they have been difficult for large scale farmers around the world to implement and just as difficult for government and industry to monitor and enforce. When it comes to smallholder farmers, it is impractical for them to plant up to 20% non-GM cotton on small plots and economic losses in these refugia is a worry for them — refugia are cultivated primarily for insect resistance management and can therefore be damaged by pests. GM developers have suggested that in contexts where smallholders dominate, nearby wild vegetation would be sufficient to provide the necessary refugia, but many experts consider this strategy unrealistic.

            The introduction of Bt crops, in the absence of a credible system to manage the development of insect resistance, puts farmers at risk of crop failures due to insect damage. In addition, this risk is accompanied by higher seed costs and uncertain global prices.

            In May 2015 the Director General of the Gourma Cotton Company (a subsidiary of the French group Geocoton) in Burkina Faso announced that the country would reduce GM cotton production across the country, over the next three years, due to “technical problems”. The final blow to GM cotton in Burkina Faso was announced the following month in the media, when the cotton industry umbrella body, Association Interprofessionnelle du Coton du Burkina (AICB), which includes notably Burkina Faso Textile Fibre Company (SOFITEX), public sector leader, Faso Coton and the Gourma Cotton Company, announced that they would withdraw from their contracts with Monsanto and phase out GM cotton altogether over the 3-year period. Key issues of concern included lower yields than promised and low quality cotton. As they withdraw from their contracts, stakeholders are currently assessing the amount of compensation they will demand for losses related to the cultivation of GM cotton since 2008.

            The introduction of GM cotton in Burkina Faso has been made possible by the closed value chain in that country where one parastatal cotton company manages all aspects of production, including credit supply, seed production and distribution, extension support, transport ginning, etc. This arrangement assists farmers to access credit for the substantially more expensive seed — because the institution that gives the farmer credit is the same one to which he or she will sell the product, at which time repayment of the loan can be deducted from the price received for the harvested crop.

            In South Africa, Monsanto mounted an aggressive campaign in the late 1990s to introduce GM cotton to smallholders in a poverty-stricken area called the Makhathini Flats, where farmers also operated within such a closed value chain. However, when a competitor moved into the game, farmers chose to sell their GM cotton to the new gin to avoid paying back their loans.

            In 2003 the entire system fell like a house of cards, with the local credit institution collapsing under the weight of unpaid debt to the tune of R22 million (approximately US$ 2 million). Without the certainty of using cotton harvests as collateral for loans, credit became unavailable in the area and cotton production dried up. Many farmers were left destitute and with their social relations in tatters due to these unpaid debts.

            GM cotton in Sudan is still very new and, for now, the information available on the performance of GM cotton there consists mostly of media reports trumpeting ‘world record breaking’ yield gains. These echo the media reports from South Africa and Burkina Faso over the years. The true story in Sudan has yet to be revealed. – Third World Network Features.

-ends-

About the author: Haidee Swanby is Senior Researcher, African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB).

The above article is reproduced from Pambazuka News, 19 June 2015 Issue 731. For a complete article with references go to http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/94939

When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings. And if reproduced on the internet, please send the web link where the article appears to twnet@po.jaring.my.

4250/15