We held dialogues on Re-Source Democracy in communities and Sustainability Academies on the same issue in two universities- the University of Port Harcourt and the University of Uyo. We also co-hosted the 2017 edition of the Right Livelihood Lecture at the RLC campus of the University of Port Harcourt. We serve you with reports from some of the events. The community dialogues focussed on forest issues anchored on the unnecessary Superhighway project as well as our right to safe food.
We are also bringing you reports and articles related to our efforts to promote true biosafety devoid of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Nigeria and Africa. A highlight of our work in this regard was a major March Against Poison that saw hundreds of Nigerians marching to the National Assembly in Abuja on 7 June 2017 to demand a repeal of the National Biosafety Management (NBMA) Act of 2015. Our disciplined objection to the permitting stance of NBMA has resulted in abusive responses from GMO promoters as you will see in one of such articles reproduced in this edition.
A momentous landmark was reached on Monday 19 June 2017 when we teamed up with SDCEA and the fisherfolks in Durban, South Africa, to launch the Fish Not Oil campaign – a grassroots resistance to offshore extractive activities. This campaign is being deepened in FishNet Dialogues with fisherfolks in our countries and our aim is to see this replicated globally.
As usual we bring you poetry and a selection of books that you should read. We also indicate upcoming activities to which you are cordially invited.
The plans to take total control of Nigeria’s food system is moving rapidly on the genetically engineered organisms (GMO) highway. The list of GMOs being pushed in Nigeria includes beans, maize and cotton. Recently the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) teamed up with ETHZ laboratories of Zurich Switzerland to apply to carry out confined field trial in Nigeria of cassava genetically modified “obtain storage roots with lower post-harvest physiological degradation after harvest (thanks to pruning) without any loss of the nutritious starch.”
Health of Mother Earth Foundation, along with 87 other civil society organisations representing over 5 million Nigerians, has sent an objection to the application submitted to the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA).
IITA’s application is to conduct “confined” field trials of the cassava genetically modified using a new gene silencing technology that has never been tested before. In fact, the IITA admits that such an approval has not been given for this GMO cassava anywhere in any “jurisdiction” in the world.
According to Nnimmo Bassey, Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), “The IITA has been a respected institution in Nigeria and Africa on whom farmers depend for good quality and safe crops. Now they have decided to drive on the GMO road, Nigerian and African agriculture face a mortal danger. If NBMA approves this application, we can as well say good bye to food safety in Nigeria.”
Bassey adds, “even if the IITA presents the Frankenstein cassava as a crop for the production of biofuel and not food, there is no way to stop our farmers from planting the GMO cassava for food. We call on the NBMA to do the needful and reject this application outright. We don’t need GMO cassava. We don’t need GMOs.”
Reacting to the multi-front attack of GMO promoters in Africa, AFSA, the pan-African civil society platform championing food sovereignty in Africa, “calls for an immediate ban on the importation into South Africa of Monsanto’s high-risk second-generation gene-silencing genetically modified (GM) maize destined for human consumption. AFSA rejects and condemns US corporation Monsanto’s plan to exploit millions of Africans as unwitting human guinea pigs for their latest genetic engineering experiment. AFSA also condemns the IITA field trial application in Nigeria using this same risky technology to produce GM cassava for the agro-fuels industry.”
AFSA adds, “These GM applications target staple foods of maize and cassava, eaten by many millions of Africans every day. Scientists have reported that the untested gene-silencing effect is able to cross over into mammals and humans, and affect their genetic makeup with unknown potential negative consequences, and have called for long-term animal testing and stronger regulation before this goes ahead.”
IITA has a long romance with cassava. In 2006, the institution issued a statement stating that from their research, for the Nigerian Government to achieve 10 percent ethanol for fuel the country would need to produce about 7 billion kilograms of cassava annually. How would that quantity of cassava be produced without taking farmers off the food production line to start producing food for machines? How would this sort of egregious non-food production be carried out without land grabbing and displacement of poor farmers?
According to Mariann Bassey Orovwuje, the Chair of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, “Promoting GM crops for biofuels demonstrates the hypocrisy of the biotech giants, who are always quick to summit that GM crops are necessary to produce more food for the growing world population. They make the case that relying only on natural crop varieties would create food deficits and lead to forests being cleared for cultivation, to meet rising food demand. Yet, the same companies think nothing of diverting large areas of arable land for cultivation of crops to develop ethanol for fuel, to feed the voracious machines of the North.”
HOMEF and all the organisations objecting to the application for confined trials of the novel cassava GMO agree with AFSA and demand that the National Biosafety Management Agency should throw out the application and advise them to carry out the test in Switzerland where it was developed.
“If IITA is tired of serving the needs of Nigeria and Africans as they have done in the past, they may as well take their business elsewhere. How can we ever trust them any longer with this extremely dangerous path they are taking?” asks Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, Convener of Nigerians against GMOs.
There is no mentioning of this specific project/application of his technology with Cassava on the website of the developer of the technology. From a related website, http://www.impb.ethz.ch/research/reseach-pb/research-pb.html, it is seen that it is another group that typically works on genetically engineered of cassava or all kinds of plants focusing on nutritional compounds such as iron and Vitamin A.
It does appear that the cassava variety being applied to be tested in Nigeria is a continuation of a PhD project under the supervision of Profs Zeeman and Gruissem. Part of that PhD research was to develop first transgenic lines of starch-altered cassava and they did all the work with one line of Cassava they got from IITA (cv60444) which they grew over the years in climate chambers/greenhouses at ETH.
The applicants claim that there are “no expected changes in toxicity or allergenicity of transgenic cassava clones,” but cites no research to back up the claim. This is highly presumptuous as other scientists have said all methods of crop improvement have potential to cause unintended compositional changes. What makes IITA’s GM cassava different? We are confounded how claims such as these with no evidence to support them can be “scientifically” acceptable. But that is very typical and this application is no exception
GE cassava for biofuel is a very ‘northern’ idea. It will not work in Nigerian context with little to no oversight over production chains and certainly not for small-scale farmers. It hasn’t even worked in industrial countries as all previous dual-use GE crops have utterly failed to this point, with the worst case being with Cry9C maize in the US which was also meant primarily as feed and explicitly NOT as food. Within weeks after the first harvest, even in a country like the US, it was shown to have ended up in all kinds of food products like cornflakes, tacos etc. They took the product off the market within a year but it was still around – and may still be around – for years.
The Applicants said the trial personnel have relevant skills in biotechnology and “will be appropriately trained in biosafety to cope with the requirement of the study.” This assertion suggests that IITA does not already have the requisite personnel to handle the biosafety aspect of this application. Again, this shows that Nigerian is chosen as the platform to roll out this risky experiment probably because they believe that any sort of application would be passed by Nigeria.
The objection also calls on the NBMA not to allow our territory to be used for the trial of risky and unnecessary technologies that add no value to our food systems but rather threaten our agriculture, health and survival of our peoples. This application fails on all layers and levels of consideration and IITA will do well to allow ETHZ to retain their specimens in their laboratories in Zurich rather than become a conduit by which our well-being is threatened.
The premise of the Petroleum Host Community Development Bill, 2016, is the pursuit of development of Petroleum “Host Communities” using the vehicle of the Petroleum Community Trust. The Bill ignores the fact that a community does not have to host petroleum companies or their facilities before they are exposed to the negative impacts that accompany the actions of the sector, for example, black soot was observed in some parts of Port Harcourt in 2016 and early 2017 far from the pollution sites. The 1998 offshore Idoho oil spill that started from Akwa Ibom spread as far as some coastal areas in Lagos. Goi community in Gokana Local Government area of Rivers State has no oil installations or pipelines but was heavily polluted by an oil spill in 2005 that has rendered many community people homeless till date and with all their sources of livelihood lost. It cannot be denied that communities that do not fall into what this Bill refers to as Petroleum Host Communities do indeed get impacted as petroleum pollution does not respect community boundaries, especially in riverine areas where water bodies and swamps impacted by oil pollution are interconnected.
Secondly, by focusing mostly on financial contribution/distribution, the Bill overlooks the critical component of prior informed consent with regard to petroleum prospecting and exploitation in the affected communities. The only manner by which this is implied is in terms of “Community Development Agreements.”
Thirdly, a Bill of this nature would benefit from robust community engagements and consultations. This does not appear to have been the case with this Bill. That step cannot be ignored and should be urgently embarked on before any further consideration of the Bill. Having a public hearing in Abuja would not be sufficient if this is truly aimed at meeting the yearnings of communities.