Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Transgenic rice once again proposed as solution to bacterial blight outbreaks, this time in Africa

Published

3 years ago

on

Scientists with an international rice initiative have been raising the alarm about a strain of bacterial blight causing outbreaks in rice fields in East Africa, and they say the patented transgenic varieties they have developed are the solution.

The scientists are with the Healthy Crops Project, a non-profit consortium funded by the Gates Foundation that brings together US and German universities, the French national research institute (IRD), the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and others. In a scientific article published in June 2023, the team claims to have identified an outbreak of a Chinese variant of bacterial blight in Tanzania, which was previously unknown on the continent, and then to have employed gene-editing techniques to confer broad resistance to bacterial blight in rice grown in Africa.

The scientists plan to first introduce their transgenic rice in Kenya, where recent regulations allow for the introduction of gene-edited crops. They have already crossed their resistant line with a variety called Komboka, which was developed by IRRI and the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation. While team leader Wolf Frommer told GRAIN they have “no interest in making profits from small scale producers”, he acknowledged that there is a patent on their gene-edited rice lines. He also said outbreaks of the Chinese bacterial blight strain have now spread to Kenya and Madagascar.

This is not the first time that IRRI and its partners have proposed GM rice as a solution to bacterial blight. Twenty years ago, farmer and consumer groups in Asia protested against the introduction of a rice known as “BB rice”— IRRI’s first transgenic rice to be field tested at its research centre in the Philippines. The Healthy Crops gene-edited rice varieties would be the first transgenic lines to be commercialised in Africa, if the project moves forward.

Groups in Asia that were opposed to IRRI’s “BB rice” argued that bacterial blight outbreaks are a product of IRRI’s green revolution model. The disease only began to be a major problem when IRRI’s semi-dwarf varieties were planted over large areas, replacing diverse local varieties with vast, uniform monocultures. The uniformity and reliance on huge amounts of chemical fertilisers created the ideal breeding grounds for bacterial blight and other diseases. IRRI’s response, beyond the promotion of chemical pesticides, was to try and integrate resistant genes from farmer varieties into its varieties, but this single gene resistance (or even multiple gene resistance) was inevitably overcome by the disease, leading to an endless race to try and identify and integrate new genes, and an escalation in pesticide use. Those opposing BB rice argued that the GMO rice would also not provide durable resistance, and that the only effective solution was to bring back diversity in the fields by restoring farmer seed systems and by moving away from chemical fertilisers and pesticides to practices that keep disease pressures down. IRRI never did manage to gain approval for the release of “BB rice” in Asia.

The situation is similar in Tanzania and Kenya. For decades now, farmers have resisted constant efforts by IRRI and other agencies to get them to abandon their farmer varieties and switch to the so-called high-yielding varieties (HYVs), including the Komboka variety of rice that the Healthy Crops team is now gene-editing. Farmer seeds still account for the vast majority of rice grown in Tanzania, one of the only countries in Africa that is self-sufficient in rice. This push for HYVs has been especially heavy in the “epicentre” of the recent bacterial blight outbreak identified by the Healthy Crops team: the Dakawa irrigation scheme in Tanzania’s fertile Morogoro Region.

It is noteworthy that the outbreak appears to have first affected fields planted to a variety called Saro 5, which has been promoted by numerous donors including the World Bank, USAID, AGRA and the Gates Foundation, despite its requirement for high levels of chemical fertilisers. For several years, the Norwegian fertiliser company Yara heavily promoted Saro 5, in combination with its fertilisers, under the Southern Agriculture Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) programme. Saro 5 seeds were given out to farmers for free and were multiplied at the Chollima Rice Institute in Dakawa and distributed to farmers in other parts of the country. These different agencies and companies have thus spread a variety of rice highly susceptible to a new strain of bacterial blight across many farms in Tanzania, creating the conditions for the disease to amplify and spread.

Several rice farmers in Dakawa contacted by Tanzania’s national farmers’ organisation MVIWATA confirmed that the disease is present in their fields. They said that the government has been promoting Saro 5 to deal with the disease, but that this has failed dramatically, since Saro 5 is highly susceptible. “Saro 5 is the type of seed that is mostly affected,” says Saumini Hamisi, a rice farmer at Dakawa.

The farmers also said that the national research agency and the extension agents in the area have been telling farmers to use various pesticides against the disease, which has done nothing to help either.

Some speculate that this new strain of bacterial blight came to Dakawa via the Chinese province of Yunnan, since this strain of the disease is only found there. They say that infected material was likely brought over by the Chongqing Zhongyi Seed Company, which took over the Chinese Agro-technology Demonstration Centre built in Dakawa in 2009 with cooperation funds from China. Like the other foreign funded programmes at Dakawa, the Chinese initiative aimed to displace local varieties, in this case with Chongqing Zhongyi’s patented hybrid varieties. The Chinese seed company has not commented on these speculations, and did not respond to GRAIN’s inquiries either. The possibility raises serious concerns, given that Chinese seed companies are engaged in hybrid rice programmes in many other countries across Africa and the world.

But whether or not the Chinese seed company is the source, the disease is now spreading without it, as the Chinese project shut down last year. The question now is how to deal with the outbreak.

In Tanzania and other rice growing regions of the world, farmers have long managed bacterial blight and other diseases. Farmers in the Philippines with the farmer-scientist network MASIPAG, for instance, do regularly select for disease resistance within their farmer varieties of rice, but their main focus is not on breeding for resistance but in using farming practices that negate the factors that favour pest or disease population build-up and outbreaks. According to MASIPAG scientist and founding member, Dr. Chito Medina, this includes planting at least three different rice varieties on each farm “so that the differential resistance of each variety prevents the development and outbreak of any biotype or any continuous increase of population of any biotype or kind of pest or pathogen” (a technique that is also used to control rice diseases in Yunnan). They also deploy certain water management techniques and avoid the use of chemical fertilisers, especially nitrogen fertilisers, which increases the reproductive rate of insects and pathogens, including bacterial blight. Medina says that, because of this approach, “there have been no reports among MASIPAG farmers of any outbreaks or recurrent pest or disease problems for a long time”, despite the presence of many strains of bacterial blight across the country.

The local varieties favoured by farmers in East Africa may be susceptible to the bacterial blight strains now circulating in the region. But this does not have to lead to major crop losses. Rather than use the outbreak as another excuse to destroy farmer seed systems, efforts must focus on helping farmers to build up resistance within their local varieties through selection and seed sharing, and to utilise farming practices that can control the disease. It is bad enough that a foreign-funded programme brought a disease outbreak; it will be much worse if this paves the way for another foreign-funded programme to displace local varieties with patented, transgenic rice seeds.

Original Source: Grain.org

Related posts:

Kabale banana farmers battle bacterial wilt again African Faith Communities Tell Gates Foundation, “Big Farming is No Solution for Africa Uganda receives fertiliser for maize, rice farming Cassava diseases threaten success of proposed ethanol plant Food sovereignty is Africa’s only solution to climate chaos

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt targets land grabbers with first national public-land register

Published

4 hours ago

on

August 14, 2026

By

Officials say a nationwide inventory will finally let the state prove what it owns — from school compounds to road reserves — but the exercise is beginning on a shoestring.

Mukono, Uganda — Uganda has begun building its first comprehensive national register of government land, an undertaking officials say is aimed squarely at land grabbers who for years have carved up public property the state often cannot prove it owns.

The five-year exercise, the Comprehensive Government Land Inventory, will document every identifiable state plot — schools, hospitals, police stations, road reserves, wetlands and forests among them — and record who owns each, how it is used and whether it is under threat.

“If we don’t do that, then we may never have land to protect,” Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba told a regional workshop at Rider Hotel in Mukono, east of the capital Kampala, on Thursday.

The vulnerability is considerable. Government land makes up about 23 percent of Uganda’s territory, but only roughly a quarter of it has been formally titled, according to the Uganda Land Commission — leaving the majority undocumented and, officials concede, easy to grab.

Nabakooba said Uganda’s rapid transformation was making the problem worse. Towns are spreading, infrastructure and industry are expanding, and land that was rural only a few years ago is now valuable real estate. She warned that population growth — which she said could push Uganda towards 70 million people by 2050 — would only sharpen the competition for a fixed supply of land.

The minister urged local authorities to enforce physical development plans and to build upwards rather than outwards. “Can we now begin thinking of going vertical when you are building offices and spaces for accommodation… then the rest of the land is used for agricultural purposes?” she asked. She singled out Wakiso district, on Kampala’s fringes, where development pressure is most intense, and cautioned officials against surrendering government plots simply because they appeared vacant.

Local knowledge, national record

The Mukono meeting, billed as the “Buganda 1” engagement and the second after the programme’s national launch in July, gathered district chairpersons, resident district commissioners, land board members and civil society from central-region districts including Wakiso, Mukono, Buikwe, Kayunga, Luweero, Nakasongola and Buvuma.

Uganda Land Commission chairperson Prof Pen Mogi Nyeko told them their local knowledge was central to the exercise. “You all virtually know what land belongs to government,” he said, appealing to them to help identify and title state plots — and warning land boards not to hand public land to individuals.

He said the state was the country’s biggest developer, and that consolidated, protected land could anchor major projects. Nyeko pointed to the Amuru sugar scheme in northern Uganda, where the government compensated landowners across some 10,000 hectares for a plantation and factory, as an example of what public land could enable, describing the local opposition it once faced as “negative politics”. The project in fact has a long and contested history, resisted for years by Acholi communities and their leaders and fought through the courts over customary ownership before compensation was settled.

Nyeko also raised the grabbing of institutional land, including plots belonging to church-founded schools. “Many of you were students in these lands, in these schools. So it is you to help us get those lands protected,” he said. He stressed the commission was not after private property: “The constitution is very clear: land belongs to the people. For us, we are only interested in land which belongs to government.” A reliable inventory, he added, would let the state direct investors to suitable sites — “if we know that there is 2, 3 square miles of land belonging to government in Nakasongola… we recommend that area for industrialisation.”

A reform on a tight budget

For all its ambition, the programme is starting with little money. The commission has said it was costed at about 100 billion shillings (roughly $27m), but only 6 billion shillings was released this financial year, even after a parliamentary committee recommended more. Implementation will be phased, beginning with cities and municipalities where land values — and the incentive to grab — are highest.

Emmanuel Kaganzi, representing the ministry’s permanent secretary, said the register had to capture more than ownership. It should show whether each parcel was surveyed, titled and free of encroachment or competing claims, he said, giving government the chance “to intervene early” rather than react to disputes after the fact.

But a register was only as good as its upkeep, he cautioned. “A government land inventory completed today but not updated tomorrow will gradually lose its usefulness.” He said responsibility for keeping records current would fall across the commission, the ministry, local governments and the agencies that occupy state land, and pressed repeatedly for coordination between them. The inventory, he added, should build on systems already in place — the Uganda Land Information System, the National Land Information Centre and the ministry’s zonal offices, which have moved land services closer to citizens — rather than create new silos.

Kaganzi was blunt about the human element. “An accurate system will achieve little if public officers knowingly allow government land to be encroached, to be taken, to be grabbed, and irregularly allocated,” he said, adding that officials entrusted with public land must treat it as belonging to the people of Uganda.

Cross-checking a fragmented record

The commission’s secretary, Andrew Nyumba, said the state’s own records were part of the problem, scattered across the commission, ministries, local governments and district land boards and never fully reconciled. The existing records, he said, did not amount to a comprehensive picture of government land.

For each holding, he said, the inventory should answer a set of basic questions — what the parcel is, where it lies, its size and boundaries, the evidence of state ownership, which institution is responsible, how it is used, whether it is documented and whether it is occupied, encroached upon or disputed. The commission would draw on registry and cadastral data, ministry and local-government records, survey and planning information, asset registers, historical archives, community knowledge and, where needed, physical checks on the ground.

Those sources would be cross-checked against one another, and disagreements, Nyumba argued, were useful rather than a setback. “A discrepancy in information is not necessarily a failure of the exercise. It is also information,” he said, describing conflicting records as a signal of where further verification was required. The goal, he said, was to move “from fragmented information toward a more reliable, integrated and continuously maintained picture of government land in Uganda”.

The drive follows years of criticism over the commission’s record-keeping. The Auditor General has previously flagged the absence of a comprehensive government land database, and the body has been drawn into numerous court cases over contested public plots — the very gaps the inventory is meant to close.

Source: www.ugstandard.com/

Related posts:

Why govt is launching a comprehensive digital land registry Government urges Ugandans to register their land interests to reduce land evictions. Govt moves to register surveyors to curb land conflicts Land commission starts updating govt land countrywide. Kasese district land bosses ordered to cancel land titles of gov’t land grabbers
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts rally the region to unite behind East Africa’s transformative Agroecology Bill.

Published

2 days ago

on

August 12, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team.

Across East Africa, experts and agricultural advocates are urging a united front for the proposed East African Community (EAC) Agroecology Bill, believing its passage could revolutionize food systems, empower food sovereignty, and uplift millions of farmers’ lives.

In mid-April 2026, the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) officially began the legislative process for the EAC Agroecology Bill, 2026, after the Agriculture, Tourism and Natural Resources Committee chairperson, Hon. Gideon Gaptan Thoar, received parliamentary leave to draft and introduce it. The drafting committee is now in the final stages of tabling the bill before parliament.

This rallying cry echoed through an online webinar hosted by the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights and broadcast live on Witness Radio. The event gathered agricultural experts, food sovereignty champions, and regional legislators to explore the bill’s promise and the hurdles it may face.

If passed, it would lay the foundation for a unified regional legal framework championing agroecological farming throughout the East African Community. Supporters believe this could be a powerful tool to combat food insecurity, protect farmers’ rights and indigenous seeds, address climate change and biodiversity loss, and tackle challenges faced by smallholder farmers.

Mr. Andrew Adem, Program Coordinator for Food Systems at the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), said the region must learn from the shortcomings of the Green Revolution model, which prioritized increased yields and external agricultural inputs.

He pointed out that although the model aimed to boost yields and farmers’ incomes, it left them vulnerable when harvests fell short.

Adem noted that in tough seasons, farmers often bear the high costs of expensive inputs, while intensive farming erodes agricultural diversity and time-honored knowledge.

To address these challenges, he said, agroecology flips the script by putting farmers and their wisdom at the heart of agricultural progress.

“In Africa, food is more important than yields because it carries a lot of things. Therefore, the Green Revolution failed, and hence the Agroecology Bill presents an opportunity for us to stand up and protect the sovereignty of food in Africa,” Adem said during the Webinar meeting.

He explained that agroecology inspires farmers to break free from expensive external inputs, nurture healthier soils, diversify their crops, and tap into the wealth of local knowledge and resources.

Unlike systems fixated on monocultures and quotas, advocates say agroecology embraces nutrition, culture, biodiversity, and the enduring wellbeing of farming communities.

This legislative push arrives as hunger casts a long shadow over Africa. Jean Leonard from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) highlighted that the continent bears the World’s largest hungry population, with around 309 million people affected.

He described agroecology as a holistic approach, weaving together ecological and social principles to shape and guide agricultural systems.

“Agroecology seeks to optimize interaction between people, markets, agriculture and ecosystems while addressing environmental, social and economic systems simultaneously rather than focusing on single technologies,” Leonard said.

Leonard outlined key ingredients for the success of the Bill: dedicated lawmakers, appropriate budgets, robust funding, supportive laws, and genuine involvement from farmers. She urged greater investment in youth, believing that empowering young people with resources and opportunities could open fresh paths into agriculture and speed the shift to agroecological farming.

Hon. Jackline Amongin, a Ugandan member of the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), said the proposed legislation is intended to create a common framework for agroecological farming across the EAC.

She emphasized that the East African Community’s unique character calls for unity, not fragmented efforts, in transforming agriculture.

“We shall have the best, but all efforts must be put on enacting the Bill into law. Once the law is put in place, all the desired issues of implementation and execution will be agreed on. Other factors will follow,” she added.

Advocates stress that agroecology is more than a farming method. They see it as a philosophy that links agriculture to environmental care, social justice, cultural heritage, nutrition, and economic vitality.

This approach inspires farmers to exchange wisdom, broaden their crops, and craft solutions tailored to their unique landscapes.

According to the Bill memorandum, the purpose of the EAC Agroecology Bill, 2026, is to mainstream agroecological farming by promoting agroecology principles across agri-food systems. It seeks to integrate ecological, social and participatory approaches while combining scientific and traditional knowledge to enhance biodiversity, ecosystem services, resilience, livelihoods and food sovereignty.

“The Bill will therefore be tabled and gazetted before being subjected to public consultations, hearings and participation by members of the public. It will then proceed to a second reading before being referred to the whole House Committee for detailed consideration. Once all these processes are duly followed, the Bill will be presented for a third reading and passage by EALA. It will then go through the EAC process before ultimately becoming an Act.” She concluded.

Related posts:

East African lawmakers and CSO leaders are meeting in Uganda to draw up plans to promote Agroecology as an alternative to climate change mitigation. Agroecological farming: EAC Bill moves to Parliament to establish a regional legal framework to protect and promote sustainable farming and food systems. EALA members renew push for unified sub-regional Agroecology Law during Mukono meeting. The Indigenous Seeds movement in East Africa is convening in Kenya, with the potential to reshape the region’s food systems. The EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, is a potential threat to smallholder farmers, as it aims to disengage them from the agriculture business, according to experts.
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Four youth activists now face public nuisance charges after their arrest during a bold march toward Parliament.

Published

3 days ago

on

August 11, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team.

At Buganda Road court, four youth activists from the Rooted in Resistance Movement were charged with public nuisance after their arrest during a passionate plea to Parliament for an oil-free Uganda.

Activists Ssembalirwa Aniwally, Mugoya Hassan, Aron Patrick Ariong, and Okanya Ivan were detained by parliamentary police as they marched with determination toward Parliament, urging the Ugandan government to abandon oil dependency in favor of an ‘oil-free economy’ built on economic freedom, sustainability, and citizen involvement.

According to the charge sheet seen by Witness Radio, the prosecution alleges that on August 10, 2026, at about 9:00 am, the four activists, along with others still at large, were at King George Way Street in Kampala Central. They wore orange T-shirts bearing the words “Rooted in Resistance” and carried placards with messages including “Prioritize Other Sectors of the Economy,” “Oil Is Temporary, Nature Is Permanent,” and “Oil Today, Problems Tomorrow.”

Prosecutors claim the activists stood on the road, disrupting traffic and creating hazards.

The activists appeared before Grade One Magistrate Her Worship Rophine Achayo at Buganda Road court yesterday, where they were charged with being a nuisance on the public road, contrary to Section 67(1) of the Road Act, Cap. 346.

Section 160(1) of the Penal Code Act, which defines a common nuisance, provides that any person who does an act not authorized by law or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby causes “any common injury, or danger or annoyance,” or obstructs or causes inconvenience to the public in the exercise of common rights, commits the misdemeanor of common nuisance and is liable to imprisonment for one year.

The four pleaded not guilty and now await their fate in Luzira Prison, remanded until August 28, 2026.

The group’s mission was to urge Parliament to rethink Uganda’s reliance on petroleum, warning that true prosperity cannot be built on a resource that will one day run out.

The activists contend that despite years of promises—jobs, industry, infrastructure, and poverty relief—oil’s benefits have reached only a privileged few, while many others remain trapped in poverty.

“Our demand for an oil-free economy is not a rejection of development, but a demand for a different development model, one that places Ugandan citizens, productive sectors and sustainable wealth creation at the center of national planning,” the group said.

They call for bold investment in other sectors, insisting Uganda should chart a path toward sustainable wealth, citizen empowerment, and true economic independence instead of clinging to petroleum.

These arrests are part of a troubling pattern as more Ugandans face criminal charges for protesting oil projects or demanding accountability for their social and environmental costs.

12 environmental activists were arrested in Kampala in August 2025 during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Eight out of the 12 activists were later convicted and sent to prison to serve an eleven (11) month sentence. They were released from Luzira Prison on April 21, 2026, as time spent on remand had effectively covered their 11-month sentences.

The other four, including Ivan Wamboga, Baker Tamale and Habibu Nalungu, pleaded guilty and were released on November 19, 2025, after being ordered to perform community service. Mark Makoba also pleaded guilty and was released on November 6, 2025, without any additional penalty.

These cases reveal the risks faced by those who challenge Uganda’s oil agenda. Even after release, the activists’ ordeals have intensified fears for freedom of expression and assembly across civil society.

Related posts:

Youth activists detained as they boldly petition Parliament, demanding a future for Uganda free from oil dependency. Ugandan Activists Face Criminal Charges Following Pipeline Protest Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira prison. Another group of eleven environmental activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira Prison for opposing the EACOP project. Youth climate activists raise frustration over govt’s silence on EACOP
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates