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

EACOP: Another community of 80 households has lost its land to the government and Total Energies to construct an oil pipeline.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

In a glaring display of injustice, the Masaka High Court ruled against 80 Project-Affected Persons (PAPs) from the Lwengo, Kyotera, and Rakai districts on October 1, 2024. The court allowed the government to deposit the compensation in Court accounts, delivering yet another blow to the marginalized communities of Uganda.

Low-income families, smallholder farmers, and landowners who derive their livelihoods from grabbed land are the latest victims of the government’s aggressive push for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project.

Last year, the Hoima High Court set a precedent and directed the government to deposit money (compensation) for the 42 households on the court’s accounts. The Project Affected Persons (PAPs) refused the money, saying that it was very little compared to the size of their land.

Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution guarantees the right to property and the right to fair and adequate compensation in cases of compulsory acquisition.

Many low-income families in the southern region of Uganda have made the same argument, rejecting compensation because it is inadequate. Others are embroiled in land disputes, the rightful owners have not been identified, and some households lack land titles. Yet, despite these glaring issues, the government is bulldozing its way through these legal and moral quagmires to serve the interests of foreign oil companies.

The High Court on Monday, October 1st, 2024, granted vacant possession of the affected people’s land so that it may be used for the EACOP project activities. Eviction and demolition orders against the affected people and the applicant were discharged from any liabilities arising out of any claim and/or order arising out of the orders being sought by the government.

The court also ruled that the rejected compensation should be deposited into the account of the Registrar of the High Court.

This ruling attack not only 80 individuals but also the citizens of Uganda, whose lives and livelihoods are rooted in the land they have legally occupied and cultivated for generations.

Witness Radio is concerned that the government is continuously weaponizing our legal system to facilitate corporate land grabs under the guise of national interest. “Such actions are weakening the Judiciary further as citizens continue to lose trust in it,” said Witness Radio legal team.

The EACOP is a planned 1,443km pipeline to be constructed from Western Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. The pipeline is expected to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Tilenga and Kingfisher oil fields to export markets.

Key shareholders in this venture, Total Energies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, are expected to reap the project’s benefits. In contrast, the communities that would be the project beneficiaries are left with nothing but broken promises.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

European banks risk legal onslaught, reputational damage by backing controversial EACOP project

Published

on

StopEACOP coalition warns of imminent litigation and formal complaints against seven unnamed European banks considering financing the destructive and controversial pipeline
The StopEACOP coalition warned today that seven European banks will be walking into a minefield of litigation, formal complaints, and severe reputational damage, if they go ahead with their reported promise to finance the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) which to many is highly controversial.

Earlier this month, Ugandan media reported that two Chinese and seven European banks “have promised to finance” the damaging pipeline project, which has been seeking a US $3 billion project finance loan from commercial banks since as early as 2017. This followed a report the previous month claiming that nine European banks would finance the project. In that report, Uganda’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Development, Hon. Ruth Nankabirwa, was quoted as saying that finance from European banks “was a requirement from China that let this project not be seen as Chinese banks only.” The project has not yet reached financial close, meaning the loan has not yet been agreed, and insurance for the project is not yet in place.

Zaki Mamdoo, StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator, said: “If it is true that seven European banks have promised to finance the EACOP, they should know that we will use all avenues available, including all legal avenues, to hold them accountable. This project is already mired in well-documented human rights abuses, and any bank stepping in to support it at this stage will be complicit in these.”

Ryan Brightwell, Human Rights Campaign Lead at BankTrack said: “The largest banks in Europe can see EACOP poses immense risks, and have said they will steer clear. If seven European banks have really agreed to finance the project, they should know they will face a huge reputational hit, as well as likely official complaints and legal challenges. They should not allow themselves to be used to greenwash a project which Chinese financiers find too controversial to shoulder alone.”

Diana Nabiruma of Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) said, “News that any financial institution, European or Chinese, is interested in supporting the EACOP, is surprising. The project’s proponents have shown such a disregard for the wellbeing of the affected people so much so that in August, they sued 80 people including the terminally ill, the elderly and others, so that their land could be forcefully taken for the project. Reports on the impact that oil activities are having on Murchison Falls National Park also paint a dire picture. No responsible bank should finance the destruction of people and nature.”

The $5 billion EACOP project, spearheaded by TotalEnergies, aims to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields to a terminal in Tanga, Tanzania. On September 6th, 2024, 20 anti-EACOP activists and some of the project-affected people were released after spending nearly a week in prison for protesting against the controversial pipeline. Just a month earlier, police had arrested 50 people, including 47 students, who were preparing to voice opposition to EACOP.

Environmental and human rights groups have persistently highlighted the potential hazards of the controversial EACOP, including severe impacts on wildlife habitats, the displacement of communities, and the exacerbation of climate change through increased greenhouse gas emissions. Many field investigation reports, including a recent Human Rights Watch report, have also documented and denounced the inadequate compensation and significant disruption experienced by residents displaced by the pipeline’s construction.

At least 27 banks have already refused to join the project finance loan for EACOP, including Japan’s SMBC, formerly an advisor on the loan, and the UK’s Standard Chartered, which spent over a year undertaking due diligence on supporting it. In addition, 29 major (re)insurers have ruled out support for the pipeline.

European banks that are not listed on the StopEACOP Bank Checklist as having ruled out support for the project are urged to make contact with the coalition to make their position clear.

Original Source: Banktrack

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon offset projects exacerbate land grabbing and undermine small farmers’ independence – GRAIN report

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

A new GRAIN research has revealed that carbon offset projects, often involving large-scale tree and other crop planting, contribute to a new wave of land grabbing in the Global South. The findings suggest that these projects, driven by corporate interests and international environmental agreements, are displacing thousands of communities and threatening small-scale farmers’ independence.

A report titled “From Land Grabbers to Carbon Cowboys: A New Scramble for Community Lands Takes Off,” released by GRAIN, an international non-profit organization supporting small farmers and social movements, highlights the scale of this growing problem. Since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2016, the report identified 279 large-scale tree and crop-planting projects covering over 9 million hectares of land across the Global South, equivalent to Portugal’s size.

The projects are registered under major voluntary offset programs, including the American Carbon Registry (ACR), Climate Action Reserve (CAR), Gold Standard (GS), Verra (VCS), BioCarbono (BC), Cercarbono (CV), and Plan Vivo (PV).

The report claims that Africa has been the most affected region, with over 5.2 million hectares of the 9 million allocated to carbon offset projects. According to the report, this has led to a new form of “carbon colonialism,” with corporations and NGOs from the Global North using the lands of indigenous communities for their own economic and environmental agendas.

“There is a clear colonial dynamic at work,” the report reads. “Companies and big NGOs from the North are once again exploiting the lands of communities in the Global South for their benefit. For instance, much of the vast eucalyptus plantations managed by Brazilian paper giant Suzano, which is involved in three large-scale carbon plantation projects, have been taken from Brazil’s indigenous and traditional peoples.”

This new wave of land grabbing is compared to the 2007–2008 global land rush when hundreds of communities were displaced to make way for large-scale industrial farms. These same global giants are back, but with a different mission: securing land for carbon plantations.

Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with GRAIN, points out the deception at the heart of these projects. “Companies often persuade farmers to sign contracts that require them to plant and maintain trees on portions of their land. However, within a few years, these trees overtake significant areas of farmland that would otherwise be used for food production, causing devastating impacts on local food security and access to land.”

Since the 2016 Paris Agreement, carbon offset projects, primarily involving tree plantations, have led to increasing conflicts over land use and displacement of communities. The push for carbon credits through tree planting has also triggered what activists and researchers call “carbon colonialism.”

For years, activists and scientists have warned that carbon offset schemes, mainly through tree planting, would lead to surges in land grabbing, especially in the Global South. “These warnings are now proving true,” says GRAIN researcher Ange-David Baïmey.

The report‘s primary concern is the shift from communal land management to privatized land contracts. Large-scale plantations—often growing eucalyptus and acacia, species known for their environmental impacts—displace traditional land uses, disrupt ecosystems, and restrict local communities’ access to their lands. Farmers who participate in these schemes are frequently misled, receiving far less compensation for their involvement than initially promised. Payments for carbon credits often fall short of covering the farmers’ losses, leaving them in a risky position.

Under these contracts, farmers must provide proof of land ownership, which then transfers the rights to the carbon sequestered in the trees and soil to the project backers. While these deals may not forcibly displace farmers, they represent a form of control over the land that undermines farmers’ autonomy and limits their ability to use their land as they see fit.

Uganda has also become entangled in this new form of land grab. For example, the Swedish hamburger chain Max Burgers has been buying carbon credits from a project called Trees for Global Benefits, which was managed by the Ugandan organization Ecotrust in 2003. While the project claims to avoid displacing farmers by encouraging them to plant trees on their lands, the report reveals troubling realities. Participating farmers sign contracts requiring them to grow and maintain trees, receive seedlings, some training, and periodic monitoring in return for payments from the carbon credits sold to Max Burgers to offset their carbon footprint.

However, this arrangement has come at a cost. The report notes that this scheme has accelerated food insecurity and poverty among local farmers. An investigation by Swedish journalist Staffan Lindberg in Aftonbladet in May 2024 revealed that some farmers who planted trees for Max Burgers’ carbon credits have resorted to cutting them down for charcoal production, driven by hunger. The trees, initially planted on their farmland, have left them with little room to grow food.

Samuel Byarugaba, a farmer quoted in the report, shares his experience: “I used to be something called a model farmer. People came to me to learn about farming, and I was proud to show off our farm. We had enough food to feed ourselves and could sell the surplus. Now, it’s all gone.”

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter