Agricultural biotechnology in Africa

Increasing agricultural productivity and adapting farming to
climate change are central to Africa's development
prospects. There are important opportunities to enhance
yields and increase resilience through the adoption of
improved crop varieties.
In some cases, biotechnology, and in particular genetic
modification (GM), offers advantages over conventional
plant-breeding approaches.
Accordingly there are a various projects under way to
develop new GM varieties for African farmers, ranging from
drought-resistant maize to varieties of cassava, banana,
sorghum, cowpea and sweet potato with resistance to pests
and disease.
In addition to government funds, these projects have also
attracted the support of influential donor agencies and
philanthropic foundations. However, despite the expenditure
of considerable resources, the potential of GM in Africa is
not being realized. So far no GM trait developed for African
farmers has been put to use.
Multiple barriers inhibit the development and adoption of
pro-poor GM varieties in Africa. On the demand side,
farmers may be reluctant to adopt GM varieties owing to a
lack of export opportunities and distrust of the technology
among local consumers.
Farmers may also be concerned about exploitation by
transnational seed companies (despite the fact that
development of new GM technologies in Africa is dominated
by the public sector).
On the supply side, donor funding struggles to match the
long timescales of research and development, while
incentives among research scientists may be poorly aligned
with farmer outcomes. Non-existent, poorly functioning or
overly punitive regulatory regimes discourage investment.
The most important barriers - such as regulatory
constraints, consumer distrust and weak farmer demand -
must be understood in the context of wider social and
political dynamics surrounding GM, typified by
misinformation, polarized public discourse, and
dysfunctional and opportunistic politics.
The result is most GM projects becoming 'stuck' at the field
trial stage without ever progressing to release. This
'convenient deadlock' of continual field trials allows
governments to manage political risks by effectively
balancing the demands of pro-GM and anti-GM lobbies -
proponents of GM have a pipeline of technologies, while
opponents are appeased by the failure of any to gain
approval.
The disabling socio-political environment for GM
development in Africa greatly reduces the efficacy of
investment in this technology.
This has two important implications. First, technology
development needs to be located within a wider project of
transformation that engages key actors - most notably
politicians, policy-makers and farmers - as stakeholders
from the outset, and includes strategies to address multiple
demand- and supply-side barriers.
Second, successful adoption is more likely in countries with
less disabling political conditions, characterized by lower
levels of consumer distrust and opposition, genuine farmer
demand and demonstrable commitment from government.
Focusing efforts and resources on a small number of 'best
bet' countries will also allow donors and technology
providers to support more ambitious, transformational
projects led by national governments.