GMO |
But, she says, all
this is now under threat as Uganda will become less competitive for the
fastest growing food market segment in U.S. and Europe.
"GMO products are
not allowed under either the Organic Standard or Fair Trade standards,"
Meg told The Independent, "The rest of the world is moving away from
this old technology, and instead of Uganda looking to the future it is
still in catch-up mode."
Meg says because of
government's failure to recognise the organic sector, Uganda which was
second in the world has now dropped to fourth, and it may drop further
unless the government agrees to pass the Organic Policy to protect the
sector.
Andrew Ndawula
Kalema who is a certified organic farmer in Nakaseke District says the
passing of the Bill is a blow to organic farmers.
"Uganda is one of
the countries which have been having a comparative advantage of
exporting organic products but with passing of the Bill we have now lost
this advantage," Kalema says.
He says the passing
of the Bill was possible not because of its merits and how much it's
going to benefit the country but because of the huge financial muscle of
the multinational GMO seed companies behind it and who will be the main
beneficiaries not Ugandans.
Patrick Luganda,
the Executive Director of Media link, an organisation which links
farmers with the media and trains climate journalists said the way the
Bill was passed is suspect.
"That was like
smuggling the Bill. Why pass it at such a time when members are charged
over the age limit debate. And what a coincidence that similar laws are
being pushed in Malawi, Kenya, and Ghana," Luganda said.
Luganda further
explained that in Malawi the government has even made it illegal to
plant indigenous varieties and farmers have to plant only the GMO seeds
which are expensive.
Luganda was
describing how the Bill was passed on Oct. 04, at a time when the
Speaker of Parliament when all attention was on the so-called 'age-limit
Bill'. One side of parliament, which is supposed to be occupied by the
opposition, was empty as many of them had been expelled and the others
were boycotting sittings in solidarity. Thomas Tayebwa (Ruhindi North)
wanted the Bill's passing delayed until the opposition members returned
but he was overruled.
President Yoweri Museveni's earlier utterances backing the Bill appear to have swayed the decision.
Scientists excited, CSOs to sue
Museveni said the
GMO law is to "help the country resolve some of the problems the
agriculture sector is facing". He is now expected to sign it into law as
soon as it gets to his table.
The passing of the Bill sent the pro-GMO scientists into celebration.
The list of the 135
"stakeholders" whom the Parliamentary Committee on Science and
Technology, chaired by Nakifuma County MP, Eng. Robert Kafeero
Ssekitoleko, interacted with to craft the law reads like the Who-is-Who
list of Uganda's scientists; from government departments like NARO,
UNSCT, Uganda Virus Research Institute, National Drug Authority, Uganda
National Bureau of Standards, universities and others.
But, although three
farmers are on the list, the Uganda National Farmers Federation (UNFF),
a body which claims to be an umbrella body of all farmers' associations
in the country, is conspicuously missing. Its Executive Secretary,
Augustine Mwendya, had earlier told The Independent that he backs the
Bill.
Dr. Godfrey Asea,
the director of National Crops Resources Research Institute (NACRRI),
one of the research institutes under NARO in Namulonge in Wakiso
district congratulated Parliament for passing the Bill.
"We now have a framework to conduct environment release and research outside the institutes," he said.
Erastus Nsubuga,
the chairperson of the Uganda Biotechnology and Biosafety Consortium,
called the law "a great achievement" that will help scientists work
within the country.
CSOs threaten court action
But Ellady Muyambi,
an environmental scientist with the nonprofit Uganda Network on Toxic
Free Malaria; one of the civil society organisations which had been
fighting the Bill, accuses the scientists at National Research
Organisation (NARO) of being bankrolled by global seed companies who
want to dominate the market and who sponsor their research and study
abroad.
"We are definitely
going to court to quash the Bill," he told The Independent, "We should
already have gone to court after Parliament passed the Bill but our
lawyers advised us that we can't until the President assents to the Bill
and it becomes law."
Muyambi says the MPs "passed a law they don't understand and don't know the implications of."
The Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) say the Bill is merely a legal regulatory regime to
allow in GMOs without safeguards and they pointed out gaps in the Bill
that needed to be blocked to improve it.
But according to a
statement by the Minister for Science, Technology and Innovation, Dr.
Elioda Tumwesigye, many of these were rejected.
With threats to
have issues of this recently passed Bill taken to court, it looks like
the five year running battle between pro GMO and opponents is not about
to end.
If, as expected,
the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill becomes law, it will clear
the way for use of biotechnology to modify animals and plants in Uganda
or import similarly treated products.
Normally, the
argument has been, the purpose will be positive; to improve yields,
breeds, and purpose. The biosafety element of the law means the
development, transfer, application, and application of plants and
animals will be done in a safe manner.
Foreign influence?
But the controversy
which has followed the Bill since it was first tabled on February 05,
2013 followed it to the Committee on Science and Technology which
considered it and two of the 33-member committee disagreed with the
majority and authored a minority report. They complained that there was
limited consultation on the Bill, it was prepared without regard to
impact on the country, and focused only on agricultural biotechnology,
and had external influence in its preparation.
Ssekitoleko,
laboured to respond to allegations of foreign sponsorship of the Bill,
especially on foreign trips. The Committee report names six countries
including Kenya, South Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina and US which
members of his committee visited for benchmarking studies on
biotechnology.
Ssekitoleko says
only the Brazil trip got money from the Uganda National Council for
Science and Technology (UNCST) for part of the expense.
Still, UNCST was in the end denied the regulatory mandate for the biotechnology sector.
Ssekitoleko was
also quizzed on why his committee visited only GMO 'success stories' and
not Burkina Faso where GM cotton backfired. He said Burkina Faso never
came up during the Committee discussions.
According to its
framers, the Bill is intended to be a regulatory framework that
facilitates the safe development and application of biotechnology in
Uganda. But opponents of the Bill claim genetically modified foods are
harmful to humans and that they are used by big agribusiness firms to
control global seed markets and farmers around the world.
The Bill faced opposition from MP outside the committee also.
Gen. Pecos Kutesa
(UPDF) warned that the Bill is a threat not only in Uganda, but the rest
of Africa, because, he said, "one who creates seeds can create
artificial seeds". Thomas Tayebwa (Ruhindi North) said the Bill was
sponsored by foreign agencies.
"The European Union
whose market we are targeting is totally against the production of
genetically modified products in favour of organic products. The GMO
industry, which we are trying to invest in, is going down and Ugandans
are going to lose out." Tayebwa is reported to have said.
Muyambi said Uganda's agricultural problem was political and not absence of a law to promote GMOs as the pro GMO lobby argued.
"The agricultural
sector is underfunded and President Museveni says he putting the money
on building roads. Even with the GMO law in place the agricultural
sector will never be redeemed under this government which has failed to
prioritise agriculture," Muyambi says.
He says Museveni's
government sidelines technocrats and instead hands the agricultural
sector to the army and cites Operation Wealth Creation (OWC), a project
under President Museveni's brother; Gen. Caleb Akandwanaho aka Salim
Saleh, where billions of shillings have been invested to alleviate
poverty through agriculture.
On the argument of
scientists developing genetically modified drought resistant varieties
like NARO's Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project in Kasese,
Muyambi asked why they do the field trials in Kasese where there is
water for irrigation and not in Karamoja which is dry to prove the
drought resistance of their maize.
Muyambi says the
MPs "passed a law they don't understand and don't know the implications
of." He cited other examples; including the Plant Varieties Act and
Geographical Indications Act.
"Can you imagine
the Geographical Indications Act stipulates that if one, for instance
develops a variety of irish potatoes to be grown in Kabale he or she can
patent it and it wouldn't be grown in any other part of the country
without the owner of the patent being paid?" he said.
Muyambi also says
apart from the Bill being unconstitutional the timing of the passing of
the Bill was not proper as members of Parliament were heated up by the
age limit debate.
But Dr. Barbara
Zawedde, the co-ordinator of the Uganda Biosciences Information Centre
(NARO information hub) reportedly said Uganda has capacity to regulate
biotechnology.
"We can now also
choose what we want to use in modern biotechnology in agriculture,
medicine, environment management, and medicine," she said.
Some Contentious Articles in GMO Bill
Labeling and
identification of GMO materials in the market and in use in Uganda is
complicated because much as it is very easy for a supermarket to label
mangoes or any fruits it's selling, a woman selling a basket of mangoes
on her head will most likely not put a label on the basket that they are
a GMO product.
The National Gene
Bank in which all genetic material, indigenous, or otherwise required
shall be kept and preserved should be an independent authority and not
under NARO which promotes GMOs.
CSOs and other stakeholders want declaration of GMO free areas so as to prevent pollution on indigenous varieties by GMOs.
Lack of public participation and awareness of the Bill.
Penalties and offences of GMOs rules are laughable and big multinational companies will breach and pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment