Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

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

Published

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

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

African communities demand land rights amid mining expansion

Published

on

Salina Sanou, a Kenyan climate justice Activist (left) and Dr Melania Chiponda, Executive Director, Shine Collab, a global feminist movement of CSOs, CBOs, and Faith based groups.. follow proceedings at the ongoing Ecofeminism 2026 Convening taking place in Harare, Zimbabwe

Community leaders, legal advocates and grassroots organisations meeting in Harare at the ongoing African Ecofeminism Convening  have renewed calls for governments, mining companies and international financiers to respect community land rights as mining and large-scale development projects continue to displace families and threaten livelihoods.

Participants at the meeting shared first-hand experiences from Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and other African countries, highlighting how communities are losing ancestral land, facing forced relocations, and suffering from pollution, inadequate compensation and limited participation in decisions that directly affect their lives.

They stressed that communities should not be treated as obstacles to development but as rightful custodians of their land whose voices must be heard before any mining or infrastructure project is approved.

“We cannot continue to see communities paying the price for development while receiving little or no benefit,” Dr Melania Chiponda, Executive Director, Shine Collab, a global feminist movement of CSOs, community groups and Faith groups said during the discussions. “Development must respect people’s rights, culture and dignity. We are demanding that land compensation must in kind and not cash; land for land,” added Dr Chiponda.

Tricia Abwooli, a lawyer working for GreenFaith Africa in Uganda raised several urgent concerns, including forced displacement of families without meaningful consultation, loss of ancestral land, cultural heritage and traditional livelihoods and environmental pollution affecting community health, particularly women and children.

Abwooli noted the compensation packages that fail to account for long-term social, cultural and economic losses, weak enforcement of legal protections and limited access to justice and [lack of transparency around mining licences, geological information and development agreements.

The meeting highlighted examples of the Hanyanya community resistance and successful advocacy. Participants from Hanyanya Community in Bikita, Zimbabwe shared experiences where organised communities used research, documentation, legal action and peaceful mobilisation to delay harmful projects, negotiate improved compensation and secure commitments for schools, clinics and other essential services.

Tapiwa Gorejena,a movement legal advisor in Zimbabwe called for stronger legal action where governments and corporations fail to meet their obligations. Strategic litigation, class actions, administrative justice processes and international legal mechanisms were identified as important tools for protecting community rights.

A key message from the meeting was that affected communities must document evidence of land loss, environmental damage and human rights violations to strengthen future legal cases and advocacy efforts.

The discussions further emphasised the importance of cross-border solidarity among African communities facing similar challenges. Participants agreed that communities can learn from one another by sharing legal strategies, advocacy experiences and successful models for defending land rights.

Concerns were also raised about international investment agreements and development initiatives that often prioritise foreign commercial interests while excluding local communities from decision-making. Participants called for greater transparency, stronger accountability and legally binding commitments that protect African communities.

The meeting concluded with several immediate priorities, including strengthening community awareness of land and environmental rights, expanding access to legal support for affected communities and building stronger networks among grassroots organisations across Africa.

They also called for investigation of legal options for challenging harmful mining and development projects and exploring the establishment of community-led tribunals to ensure the voices of affected people are heard in national and international decision-making.

Community organisations reaffirmed that lasting development can only be achieved when local people are fully consulted, fairly compensated and empowered to participate in decisions affecting their land and future.

Source: kbc.co.ke

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The untold struggle of community land right defenders in eastern DRC’s three-decade war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

“My land is among the properties currently being used by rebels. I had purchased a plot right along Route 2, but an M23 officer is now renting it out to traders. He collects the fees for my own land while I suffer here in hiding. I cannot even call him, for fear of exposing myself to further danger.”

These are the words of a community land-right defender from North Kivu Province, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), living in hiding after becoming a target for defending community land rights.

According to the defender, defending land rights has come at an enormous cost. He has lost access to his property, his livelihood, and his freedom of movement. A piece of land he legally acquired is now under the control of others, and he remains unable to challenge their occupation because doing so could put his life at risk.

His story reflects a growing reality across eastern DRC, where decades of conflict have made land one of the most contested resources. As armed groups expand territorial control, communities say homes, farms, grazing areas, and commercial properties are being seized, leaving millions displaced and land rights defenders increasingly vulnerable.

Eastern DRC has endured armed conflict for more than three decades. The violence has involved government forces and multiple armed groups competing for political influence, territory, and control over valuable resources.

Since its resurgence in 2021, the March 23 Movement (M23), operating under the AFC/M23 coalition, has captured large areas of North and South Kivu, some of the country’s most strategic and resource-rich provinces.

According to the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s July 2025 report, the control of large parts of North and South Kivu by AFC/M23 secured access to mineral-rich territories and fertile land, while increasing Rwanda’s influence in the DRC.

The report highlights the strategic importance of territorial control in the conflict, where access to natural resources, productive land, and key areas is closely linked to armed groups’ expansion and regional influence.

For communities living in these territories, territorial control has brought displacement, insecurity, and loss of ancestral land.

According to the United Nations, more than seven million people are internally displaced across the Democratic Republic of Congo, making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Many displaced people who spoke to the Witness Radio team say that when fighting forces drive them from their homes, their property often becomes vulnerable to occupation.

“Many people are suffering in silence. Throughout the territory, homes, fields, and plots are being seized by force while people are being driven out so that others can settle in undisturbed. Rwandans are leaving their homes to occupy local owners’ properties. We are helpless and suffering in silence,” he said.

Another defender, whom Witness Radio identifies as Mwamba for security reasons, says his family’s struggle over land has lasted for generations and has been shaped by armed conflict.

Mwamba says his father, a traditional chief, farmer, and landowner in North Kivu, was targeted during the years of rebellion and that their family land, measuring approximately 240 hectares, was taken over.

Before the land was seized, the family ran a farm with livestock, including about 550 cattle, 250 sheep and goats, and 50 pigs.

According to Mwamba, the livestock were looted, houses were destroyed, and the farm was occupied by armed actors linked to the AFC/M23 movement during successive periods of conflict.

“My whole life, there has been conflict over our family’s property. Since the 1990s, we have never been able to use our land in peace,” he said.

The human cost has been greater than the economic losses, leading to the deaths of his family members. He recalls, “In 1997, my three older brothers were captured on the road and killed by the same group that had grabbed our land. When I later tried to organize my family to reclaim what belongs to us, I received death threats too. I had to flee because I believed I would be next.”

Today, his family lives in poverty while watching others profit from land they say has belonged to them for generations.

“All family members left to save their lives. The farm is still in their hands, and we cannot even approach it,” he said.

Also, human rights lawyer Ngoma, whose real name is withheld for safety reasons, says defending victims of land grabbing and other abuses became a threat to his own survival.

For more than a decade, Ngoma represented marginalized communities seeking justice for land seizures, killings, sexual violence, torture, and other abuses committed during the conflict.

But when M23 fighters took control of his area, his work put him in danger.

“I felt constantly at risk, to the point of receiving death threats from the very people against whom we were litigating. I faced numerous threats to my own safety and that of my family. I was forced to change my phone numbers, cut communication with people, and I could no longer move freely as a citizen,” he told Witness Radio in an exclusive interview.

Like many other human rights defenders, Ngoma eventually fled and went into hiding for safety, but the conflict and its far-reaching costs to victims remained. His departure disrupted his life and left many victims without legal representation when they needed it most. For communities whose land had been seized or whose relatives had been killed, lawyers and land defenders are often the only link to justice. When they are forced into exile or silence through threats and intimidation, victims are left with few avenues to challenge abuses, document violations, or pursue accountability.

“When the conflict escalated, that marked the beginning of my ordeal. My life was thrown into turmoil. I was forced to flee and constantly protect my family from possible attacks,” he added.

His experience reflects a wider pattern across eastern DRC, where attacks on lawyers, land defenders, and human rights activists have weakened community efforts to resist land dispossession and seek justice. As those documenting abuses are driven into hiding, armed groups tighten their control over contested territories, while many displaced families are left without the legal and human rights support needed to reclaim their land or defend their rights.

Residents say that when armed groups capture territory and civilians flee, abandoned properties can become vulnerable to occupation. Families who later attempt to return often face intimidation, threats, or the inability to reclaim their land.

Researchers widely agree that the conflict in eastern DRC has multiple overlapping drivers, including competition for political power, ethnic tensions, control of mineral resources, weak governance, and territorial control. Within this broader conflict, land remains a critical source of both livelihoods and strategic influence, making it a frequent point of contestation between armed groups and displaced communities.

Dr. Deborah S. Rogers, the International Outreach Coordinator for the coalition Mobilization for the Safeguarding of Congolese Sovereignty and Autonomy (MOSSAC), told Witness Radio that, in her view, Rwanda’s involvement in eastern DRC is closely linked to territorial expansion.

According to Dr. Rogers, Rwanda’s limited land area and growing population have increased the importance of securing additional territory. She argued that in areas under the control of the AFC/M23, civilians are frequently driven from their homes through violence and intimidation. When displaced families later attempt to return, she said, many discover that their land has already been occupied by people she identifies as Rwandans.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about attacks against those documenting abuses and supporting affected communities.

Between November 2025 and February 2026, several human rights defenders in North and South Kivu were reportedly targeted because of their work, according to the United Nations.

In January 2026, UN human rights experts expressed concern over allegations of attempted killings, kidnappings, torture, sexual violence, and death threats targeting defenders and their families.

The attacks have forced many defenders to choose between abandoning their work and risking their lives.

Despite years of displacement and violence, many affected families still hope to return to their ancestral lands.

“The land belongs to our families. We have lost so much, but we have not lost hope. One day, we believe justice will allow us to return,” Mwemba told our team.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ugandan farmers take TotalEnergies’ pipeline to UK court

Published

on

Police apprehend a Ugandan activist during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) plans in Kampala, Uganda, on 15 September, 2023. © Reuters

Four Ugandan farmers filed a case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) at the UK’s High Court on Tuesday, seeking to have Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law applied to EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company financing the project

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