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

Food systems in conflict areas: Architectures of armed conflict are turning food and hunger into weapons of war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

War now extends beyond guns and bombs, with food systems becoming strategic tools in modern conflict, a crucial factor for understanding global security and the deliberate targeting of food as a weapon.

Fields are burned before harvest. Irrigation systems are destroyed. Fishing zones are blocked. Grain silos are bombed. Seeds are contaminated or confiscated. Entire communities are cut off from their ability to grow or buy food for months or years, deliberately harming people’s access to food.

The result is not only displacement or destruction, but a slower, more deliberate outcome: hunger. In many cases, it functions not as a side effect of war but as a method of weakening populations and reshaping control over land, resources, and survival itself.

A new position paper by La Via Campesina, representing over 200 million peasants, Indigenous peoples, farmers, and rural workers, argues that controlling land and food is a deliberate political act, and that defending these resources is vital to life itself. This underscores the critical need for collective action to safeguard food security.

The report frames war and hunger as interconnected forces within a global political order, highlighting the widespread implications of targeting food systems.

The document states that “war and hunger are two faces of the same system,” and adds that defending land and food systems is inseparable from defending life itself.

La Via Campesina describes the current global moment as one defined by overlapping conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, the Sahel, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regions. Rather than isolated crises, the report suggests these wars reflect a broader global system shaped by intensifying geopolitical competition, expanding military industries, weakening international governance, and growing pressure on land, water, and food systems.

“Rare earth elements, fossil fuels, water, and agricultural land are the true stakes of most contemporary conflicts. The targeting of Ukrainian grain exports, the scramble for Congolese cobalt, and the siege of Gaza’s fishing grounds all reflect this logic,” the paper reveals.

The rural poor, who produce most of the World’s food, are bearing the heaviest burden. They face poverty, hunger, displacement, and vulnerability.

Modern conflicts target food infrastructure-irrigation, grain reserves, and seed banks-highlighting how warfare deliberately undermines food security and calls for increased vigilance.

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is strategic. Throughout history, empires understood that destroying a people’s capacity to feed themselves is among the most effective tools of subjugation.” La Via Campesina describes.

Across the cases examined in the report, La Via Campesina argues that controlling food has long been a way of controlling populations. What is different today, it suggests, is the scale, coordination, and technological sophistication through which food systems are disrupted in modern warfare.

In Gaza, the report cites widespread destruction of agricultural land and severe restrictions on fishing areas, alongside repeated disruptions of food supply corridors. Humanitarian assessments referenced in the paper indicate that more than 80% of farmland has been damaged or rendered unusable, deepening already severe food insecurity and famine risk warnings.

In Yemen, years of restrictions on key ports, particularly Hudaydah, through which most food imports enter, have significantly limited access to essential supplies. Combined with ongoing conflict, this has contributed to one of the most severe and prolonged hunger crises in the world.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, cycles of armed violence have repeatedly destroyed crops and forced farming communities from their land. In many areas, agricultural production has collapsed entirely due to insecurity and the presence of armed groups controlling rural territory. The result has been persistent and widespread food insecurity affecting millions of people.

In Sudan, the conflict has similarly disrupted food systems through the looting of grain stores, destruction of farms, and mass displacement of rural populations. Entire agricultural regions have been emptied, turning once-productive farmland into zones of acute hunger.

The environmental degradation in war zones, including soil contamination and deforestation, is linked directly to global climate and resource crises, calling for a heightened awareness of these interconnected issues.

The report also links these local environmental impacts to global ecological pressures. It argues that as climate instability, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss intensify, competition over natural resources is increasing. In this context, land, water, and fertile agricultural regions become strategic assets in broader geopolitical struggles.

What emerges from both the data and case studies is a picture of hunger that is not only humanitarian but deeply political. It is shaped by conflict, resource control, and global systems that determine who can produce food, who can access it, and who is excluded from both.

In this sense, the report suggests, war is no longer confined to battlefields. It extends into wheat fields, fishing waters, seed banks, and supply routes. Hunger becomes not just a consequence of war, but one of its most powerful instruments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team

As the global push for clean energy accelerates, African governments are under mounting pressure to move away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. But economists, political leaders, and climate justice advocates are warning that Africa’s transition could reproduce the same unequal economic structures established during colonialism unless the continent gains greater control over its resources, industries, and financing systems, inspiring a sense of agency and possibility.

Although Africa contributes less than 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. The continent continues to suffer disproportionately from a crisis largely caused by industrialized nations, including prolonged droughts and devastating floods, which greatly affect its people.

Governments across Africa are increasingly adopting renewable energy policies promoted as pathways toward sustainable development. Despite being promoted, a growing number of experts argue that the transition risks becoming another extractive project in which African resources fuel foreign industries while local communities remain impoverished.

The global transition to clean energy has sharply increased demand for minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, and copper, which are abundant across Africa and critical for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies.

At the same time, the continent possesses vast renewable energy potential. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Africa could generate significantly more renewable energy than it currently consumes.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Tunisian economist and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub, said Africa’s role in the global transition should go beyond merely supplying raw materials to industrialized countries.

“We cannot decarbonize a system that hasn’t been structurally economically decolonized yet. Africa has the potential to become an energy powerhouse globally, an industrial powerhouse, and as a result, an economic and geopolitical powerhouse.” Kaboub reveals.

Kaboub argued that the current global economic system continues to place African countries at the bottom of supply chains, echoing colonial patterns. This pattern is vital for economists and global citizens to understand.

“Africa was assigned the role of supplying cheap raw materials while importing finished products and technologies. The danger is that the green transition is reinforcing the same model instead of transforming it,” he added.

Across the continent, activists and researchers are increasingly raising concerns about what they describe as “green colonialism,” where climate and environmental projects dispossess communities while benefiting foreign governments and corporations.

In several African countries, including Uganda, large-scale carbon offset projects have been linked to land conflicts and forced displacement. Critics say some carbon markets allow polluting corporations in the Global North to continue emitting greenhouse gases while using African land and forests to offset their emissions.

Environmental advocates warn that unless African governments ensure local ownership and value addition in mining linked to renewable energy, the continent risks repeating the history of raw material extraction, which is key for informed policy decisions.

Africa’s green transition discussions also focused on climate financing as a key point of debate. African leaders have repeatedly criticized rich countries for not sufficiently financing adaptation and renewable energy projects, despite their historic role in spewing the bulk of the World’s carbon emissions.

At the COP29 climate Summit in November 2024 in Azerbaijan, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, warned that many African countries are trapped between debt repayment obligations and climate adaptation needs.

“Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default- a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shuttering climate events,” he added.

Speaking during the Africa Climate Summit 2025, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said debt restructuring must become part of global climate discussions.

“Unless we confront the debt crisis head-on, efforts to finance Africa’s climate ambitions will continue to fall short,” Desalegn said.

Kaboub believes the financing crisis reflects a broader historical injustice. “The industrialized world has consumed most of the global carbon budget that creates a climate debt owed to Africa and the Global South.” He revealed.

Some African economists and climate justice groups are calling for climate reparations, not more loans that deepen dependency, to address historical injustices and support equitable development.

“The future of Africa’s green transition depends on who controls it. If Africa controls its resources, industries, and development path, the transition could become a tool for liberation. If not, it risks becoming another phase of exploitation under a green banner.” Kaboub concluded.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rising fertilizer dependence sparks debate over Africa’s agricultural future; experts call for urgent critical review process.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

In March this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that the number of people facing acute hunger globally could rise sharply if escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilize the global economy, projecting that nearly 45 million additional people could slide into acute food insecurity.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in a war with Iran and its regional allies. The conflict began when the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites and assassinating several Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries in West Asia, and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.

As global tensions continue, experts have revealed that they are disrupting fertilizer supply chains and driving up prices, an issue likely to threaten food security and make policymakers feel responsible for safeguarding Africa’s future.

A recent report by GRAIN, an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), argues that Africa’s increasing reliance on imported chemical fertilizers is exposing farmers and food systems to economic, political, and environmental risks.

Titled “Can African Food Systems Thrive Without Chemical Fertilizers?”, the report links recent fertilizer price spikes to conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. According to the report, these crises have disrupted the movement of fertilizers and raw materials, such as natural gas and sulfur, pushing prices beyond the reach of many African farmers.

According to the report, the African fertilizer market is currently worth around US$10–15 billion and is projected to grow to US$20 billion over the next four years. It adds that the largest fertilizer manufacturers — including Yara of Norway, OCP of Morocco, PhosAgro of Russia, Nutrien of Canada, and Mosaic of the United States — are seeking to expand their presence in this fast-growing, highly profitable market.

GRAIN researcher Ange David Baimey told the Witness Radio team that growing concerns about the ongoing impact of global conflicts on African agriculture drove the investigation.

“As you can see, the recent crisis involving Iran, the USA, and the Middle East created a lot of uncertainty concerning how fertilizers can continue reaching African countries. Before this, we also had the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19. If you look at the last six years, these crises have seriously affected agriculture in Africa.” Ange, who participated in the research, told Witness Radio.

For decades, many African governments, donors, and agribusinesses have promoted chemical fertilizers as essential for increasing food production. However, the report highlights that relying on organic and sustainable practices-such as indigenous knowledge, crop diversity, and soil fertility methods-can be safer and more resilient. Showcasing successful case studies can help policymakers see practical alternatives to dependency.

“The only solution to the best agricultural practices is not chemical fertilizers. Farmers have tested and agreed that organic fertilizers are the answer. Ange further mentioned.

According to the report, the push for chemical fertilizers accelerated during the Green Revolution period, driven largely by multinational agribusiness interests seeking profits from agricultural inputs.

“The Green Revolution is not the beginning of agriculture in Africa. Our systems existed before chemical fertilizers. What we see now is a system where companies are making profits while creating dependency.” He said.

The report notes that many African countries import significant quantities of fertilizers from Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Countries including Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, and Mozambique remain highly dependent on these imports, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global prices.

Although African governments spend billions of dollars on fertilizer subsidy programs, many small-scale farmers still struggle to afford the products. In some countries, fertilizer prices are significantly higher than global averages due to import dependency, market concentration, and the dominance of multinational corporations in the supply chain.

“In our research, we also discovered that African farmers often pay more for the same fertilizers than farmers in Europe or the United States. The market is controlled by powerful companies whose goal is profit.” Ange explained.

The report identifies major corporations such as Yara International, OCP Group, and Dangote Group as key players shaping Africa’s fertilizer markets.

“These companies have huge influence and power in African agriculture. Governments must examine even discussions around continental trade agreements carefully because the same multinational companies may continue dominating the market.” Ange observed.

Beyond economic concerns, the report also highlights environmental and health impacts associated with chemical fertilizers, including soil degradation, water pollution, and increased pesticide use. The report advises African countries to adopt organic approaches to improve their yields, human and soil health, and to avoid environmental shocks.

“A change of course off the chemical fertilizer treadmill and towards agroecology is even more urgent in the face of the climate crisis. Climate scientists are calling today for a 42% global reduction in fertilizer use by 2050, to keep the planet livable.” The report noted.

Experts urge African leaders to use these global shocks as an opportunity to rethink Africa’s agricultural direction. “If you are dependent upon another person for your food, what happens when that person cuts off access? That is the situation Africa is in. The COVID crisis, the Ukraine war, and now the Gulf crisis all prove that reliance on imported fertilizers is dangerous. Africa can feed itself. The question is whether governments are willing to assist with that transition.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter