Joint CSO statement on the weakening of Zambia’s bio-safety standards-11/01/2019

ATT:

P.S Ministry of Higher Education

Maxwell house, Los Angeles Boulevard

P.O Box 50464,

Lusaka, Zambia

C.C:

P.S. Ministry of Agriculture

P.S Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries

P.S Ministry of Justice

P.S Ministry of Commerce

P.S Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Honorable Members of Parliament

House of Chiefs

Dear Sir / Madam,

 Zambia Must Continue To Uphold The Highest Biosafety Standards 

Zambia’s approach to the use Modern Biotechnology[1] and the use of genetic engineering in the food and agriculture system has rested on the Precautionary Principle. The objective is to maintain the highest biosafety standards, thereby ensuring Human Rights are upheld, national sovereignty maintained, economic market interests protected and the health and well being of people and the environment prioritised.

In the past 14 months, the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) has developed  a new draft of the National Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy, and is now forging ahead with the process of developing regulations for live Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Zambia. We  are witnessing how the NBA is being influenced by, and prioritising  international and regional trade and policy lobbyist, whilst minimising the policy opinion of national stakeholders.

Recent collaboration with the African Biodiversity Network of Experts (ABNE) to develop the regulations for the updated new draft National Policy, allowing for works on Live Modified Organisms (LMOs) is seen as particularly problematic. The ABNE has a clear objective to promote the use Modern Biotechnology, including new technologies under the broad umbrella of Synthetic Biology[2]. This  is a biased influence in the National Policy formation process. The NBA are required to hold a neutral position. Their recent collaboration and deliberate exclusion of local actors brings their position and actions into serious question.

The NBA is a public institution mandated by the people of Zambia and maintained through tax payer money. The NBA has a directive to work for the peoples’ best interest and to ensure that their rights to prior information and public consultation are duly fulfilled.

We the undersigned strongly object to the recent moves by the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) to radically change the national position on genetic engineering in the food and agriculture sector.

Acknowledging this, we:

  • Demand that the NBA consult the people of Zambia if indeed they actually want the National Position of No-GMOs revoked, before continuing to forge ahead with proposed new policy and regulations that are incongruous with current national opinion;
  • Reject the influence of the African Biodiversity Network of Experts (ABNE) in the formation of our policy and law and call on the governing Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) to intervene appropriately;
  • Call on the NBA to stop prioritising the interests and policy stance of international and regional institutions over and above national interest groups and policy experts;
  • Call on the MOHE to explain how the country will compensate financially for the opportunity costs of export market losses after Zambia loses its GMO free reputation; how they will finance the required international standards for regulatory systems to be effectively institutionalised, and expand regulatory testing and monitoring facilities country wide; respond to downstream ecological effects, contamination and loss of livelihoods; finance the long term public health bill, especially resulting from increased use and consumption of GMO associated systemic agro-chemicals.

Therefore – as people of faith, in agriculture training institutions, civil society, farmers and consumers alike, we raise our voice of concern at the NBAs determined attempts to weaken biosafety standards regardless of public opinion and interests.

We support our leaders in their efforts to prioritise the interests of Zambia’s farmers and diversify the agriculture sector to enable sustainable and healthy production systems.

Presented and signed:

  1. Action Aid Zambia
  2. Africa Consumer Union (ACU)
  3. Birdlife Zambia
  4. Caritas Zambia
  5. Centre for Environment Justice
  6. Chimwemwe Farmers Association
  7. Chongwe Organic Produces Association
  8. Civil Society for Poverty Reduction
  9. Community Technology Development Trust
  10. Consumer Unity Trust Society – CUTS Lusaka
  11. ESAFF Zambia
  12. Grassroots Trust
  13. Green Living Movement
  14. Greener World Alliance
  15. GreenFox Organics
  16. Kaluli Development Foundation
  17. Kanyongoloka Multipurpose Cooperative
  18. Kanuseka Cooperative
  19. Kasisi Agriculture Training Centre
  20. Katuba Livelihood Project (KLP)
  21. Luumuno Farmers Association
  22. Luili Farmers Club
  23. Mumbwa Cooperative Union
  24. Mumbwa Seed Growers
  25. Mwange Women farmers’ Association.
  26. Nyausenga Farmers’ Association
  27. Rural Women’s Assembly Zambia
  28. SCOPE Zambia
  29. Zambia Consumer Association (ZACA)
  30. Zambia Land Alliance
  31. ZNFU Mumbwa


[1] ‘Modern Biotechnology’ (as opposed to ‘Conventional Biotechnology’ or breeding) means the application of the “Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection” (IAASTD, 2008).

[2]The umbrella term, Synthetic Biology, (i.e. artificial / unnatural) describes next generation genetic engineering tools that facilitate and accelerate the “design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems” (CBD operational definition). Techniques incorporate DNA/RNA synthesis (building DNA/RNA from scratch in the lab), sequencing, Genome Editing and Gene Drives. The results enable designing and making biological components or ‘parts’, altering organisms’ genetic sequences and modifying living organisms with new synthetic traits for agricultural or ecosystem changes. Gene Drives are artificial genetic traits inserted into the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism. This creates a new Gene Drive Organism (GDOs). GDOs are designed to pass on a specific engineered trait to all their offspring. By releasing a few organisms, an artificial trait can be deliberately spread throughout an entire population, either to alter the population or cause it to crash (die out).

Zambia supports the global call for a moratorium on Gene Drive releases- Press Release 15/11/2018

The citizens of Zambia, have repeatedly stated their absolute objection to Modern Biotechnology and the production of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Today, this position is reiterated as we support the global call for a moratorium on Gene Drive releases, including applied research such as open field trial releases, until there is further understanding of the potential risks and technical issues. We request our National Representatives to do the same at the upcoming 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity due to take place in Sharm El -Sheikh, Egypt 17-29 November 2018.

The global meeting in Egypt will discuss new and highly controversial genetic engineering technologies. Extreme and invasive forms of Genetic Modification (next generation GMOs) under the umbrella term of Synthetic Biology, are being rapidly developed and commercialised. Significant economic disruption is expected especially on the economies, livelihoods and biodiversity of countries in the Global South[i]

Synthetic Biology is currently globally unregulated and categorically undermines the Precautionary Principle and Human Rights for free, prior and informed consent. Proponents of Synthetic Biology –  big agro-food and pharmaceutical corporations, together with philanthropic capital – are pushing for African countries to accept this new technology. The premature push absolutely disregards the unknown risks and long term effects on whole ecosystems and human populations.

Today, ZAAB has released an open letter to the delegates who will represent the people of Zambia at the upcoming global meetings (The Convention on Biological Diversity COP 14 and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety COP-MOP 9). The open letter calls for the Zambian representatives to uphold the best interests of the people of Zambia, who have continually stated their outright objection to the use of genetic engineering.

“We raise our concern regarding the considerable unknown risks associated with new SynBio technologies; the inability to contain organisms following both field trial and commercial releases, the inability to regulate trans-boundary movement of Gene Drive Organisms (GDOs); the issues surrounding monitoring, assessment and liability; and the need for free, prior and informed consent.

We therefore call on you to uphold the best interests of Zambia, her citizens and her environment and future generations. Africa has been the site of foreign and corporate exploitation for many years, and synthetic biology poses an extreme new era of manipulation and control”[ii].

Further information:

What is Synthetic Biology?

The umbrella term, Synthetic Biology, (i.e. artificial / unnatural) describes next generation genetic engineering tools that facilitate and accelerate the “design, redesign, manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems” (CBD operational definition)[iii].

Techniques incorporate DNA/RNA synthesis (building DNA/RNA from scratch in the lab), sequencing, Genome Editing and Gene Drives. The results enable designing and making biological components or ‘parts’, altering organisms’ genetic sequences and modifying living organisms with new synthetic traits for agricultural or ecosystem changes.

What are Gene Drives?

Gene Drives are artificial genetic traits inserted into the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism. This creates a new Gene Drive Organism (GDOs). GDOs are designed to pass on a specific engineered trait to all their offspring. By releasing a few organisms, an artificial trait can be deliberately spread throughout an entire population, either to alter the population or cause it to crash (die out).

The logic behind new technologies? 

The logic of synthetic biology, gene drive or genetically modified organisms, in agriculture relies on the continued deception that exceedingly complex problems in the food system can be resolved simply by new high-tech innovations.

Industry claim is that new technologies could make some agricultural or human pests go extinct, reduce pesticide use, and speed up plant breeding and synthetic production of food. The risks associated with this new and rapidly developing technology have not been measured nor the public consulted.

The potential for the creation of invasive GDOs capable of spreading engineered genes in the wild takes one of the worst scenarios envisaged for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and turns it into a deliberate industrial strategy. While first generation GMOs mostly spread engineered genes by accident, GDOs will be designed to do their own engineering among wild populations out in the real world. Their spread to those populations would be deliberate. Scientists behind gene drives have only just begun to ask what would happen if the genes aren’t quite as well behaved as their Mendelian models intended. What if genes for female sterility, for instance, which have been shown to eliminate mosquito populations in the lab, transferred to species that pollinate our crops or are a food source for birds, reptiles, even humans? What if genes that were beneficial became disabled, or if genetic disruption increased the prevalence or altered patterns of diseases? (ETC Group, Forcing the Farm, 2018).

 The ongoing undermining of Zambia’s ‘no-GMO’ position

Citizens of Zambia have always been strongly opposed to the use of modern biotechnology to produce GMOs. Government leaders have supported this position. In 2017 however, the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) called an initial review meeting of the National Biosafety Policy, that is in-fact recognised as a model policy by countries around the world. The initial proposed amendments were specifically in interest of weakening the Precautionary Principle and removing clauses related to liability and redress (i.e. owner pays for problems incurred). The original, alarmingly small and exclusive meeting held by the NBA in September 2017, Livingstone, was dominated by NEPAD/ AU and COMESA representatives.

The AU has recently released a very premature endorsement of Gene Drive technology and the imminent release of GM mosquitoes in Burkina Faso. The first Live Modified Organisms (LMOs) to be realised on the Africa continent, despite the significant public outcry.

The ZAAB is highly alarmed by the close relationship between the Zambian NBA, the AU and other regional trade groups, who seem to be driving our Zambian agenda. The AU / NEPAD and COMESA have a clear bias towards the promotion of genetic engineering and facilitating increased corporate concentration in African food systems, that disregard public demands, local livelihoods and the long term economic interest of African states.

Citizens around the world have fought for decades against powerful corporations that dominate public discussion and sway regulations to favour profit over people’s best interest.

Up until this last year, Zambia has remained strong in upholding its citizens’ position that Zambia is a No-GMO country. The ongoing review process by the National Biosafety Policy is extremely concerning, especially given the very biased pro-GMO agenda that has been the undercurrent of discussions thus far and seemingly aimed at completely altering the national position.

The public still awaits further communication from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, that is overseeing the National Policy review process.

We, the members to the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity, and citizens of Zambia, call on our National representatives to uphold the best interests of the people and not be swayed by the powers of multinational corporations and their foreign policy allies.

[i] www.synbiogovernance.org (ACB, TWN and ETC Group)

[ii] ZAAB, Open Letter to the Zambian Delegation to The Convention on Biological Diversity COP 14 and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety COP-MOP 9, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, 17 – 29 November 2018)

[iii] www.synbiogovernance.org (ACB, TWN and ETC Group)

ATT: Representatives of the people of Zambia to the Convention of Biological Diversity-14/11/2018

 

Dear representatives of the people of Zambia to the Convention of Biological Diversity,

We wish you well in your travels to Egypt and the critical negotiations you will undertake on behalf of the citizens of Zambia.

We understand the nature of the discussions at this year’s CBD COP will be highly controversial and critical in determining the future course of humanity’s use and manipulation of genetic resources – and in turn –  the impact of nature on humanity.

Of particular concern to us, are the discussions related to synthetic biology and gene drive technologies, digital sequencing, and their overarching biosafety standards.

The current proponents of synthetic biology are proceeding under the false assertions of experiments in the interest of public health. However, the developers of new SynBio technology themselves state that the real use and profits from the technologies are to found in the food and agriculture system. The strong push for the unregulated expansion in the use of these new technologies is driven by foreign corporations and philanthropic capital that facilitate the further control of global pharmaceutical and agro-food chains.

The establishment of the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol, were in recognition of need to take a precautionary stance when dealing to new unknown technologies and regulate the capital exploitation of genetic resources and living organisms; to protect biodiversity – and thus humanity – from harm.

In the past decade, the topic of new genetic engineering techniques (‘synthetic biology’) has risen up the agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). New technological approaches such as genome editing and rapid DNA synthesis are being commercially applied with significant economic disruption expected, especially on the economies, livelihoods and biodiversity of countries in the Global South.

Zambia citizens repeatedly state their absolute objection to Genetic Modification, and now its extreme versions found in Synthetic Biology. Africa has been the site of foreign and corporate exploitation for many years, and synthetic biology poses an extreme new era of manipulation and control.

We reiterate our public position that Zambia remains a No-GMO country. We raise our serious concern regarding

the considerable unknown risks associated with new SynBio technologies and their disruptive effect on local livelihoods and ecosystems;

the inability to contain gene drive organisms following both field trial and commercial releases,

the inability to regulate trans-boundary movement of GDOs;

the issues surrounding monitoring, assessment and liability;

and the need for free, prior and informed consent, particularly with regards to lands and territories of indigenous and local communities as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 The advances in synthetic biology present clear risks to the environment, health and biodiversity of the African region, and threaten livelihoods. The current regulatory environment needs to be updated and reviewed to stay abreast of these advances, with particular attention to the environmental release of synthetic biology organisms. Of especial concern is the potential deployment of gene drive systems, where even regulations pertaining to contained use should be reviewed with extreme precaution. Benefits sharing, with regards to digital sequences, should also be reviewed, since open access to digital sequences is likely to facilitate further biopiracy and profit extraction of African plant resources.

We support the global civil society call for a moratorium on gene drive releases, including applied research such as open field trial releases, until there is further understanding of the potential risks and technical issues.

Together with our international civil society partners, we ask you to put precautionary governance ahead of this fast-moving and disruptive field and ensure Parties:

  • urgently agree to not release gene drive organisms;
  • implement stringent contained-use standards to prevent accidental releases;
  • put in place the means to detect, identify, monitor, track and test for the presence of synthetic biology components, organisms and products; and,
  • establish the means for rapid horizon scanning of new developments
  • Synthetic Biology could also be formally identified as “a new and emerging issue,” reflecting its substantive and recurrent presence in the CBD’s programme of work.

We therefore call on you, our national representatives to the Convention on Biological Diversity COP 14 and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety COP-MOP 9 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to uphold the wishes and best interests of Zambia, her citizens and her environment and future generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zambia’s Position on GMOs and the Revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003 March 2018-7/03/2018

Zambia must continue to uphold the highest biosafety standards

Zambia’s approach to biosafety since the development of the Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003 has been cautious and aimed at ensuring high standards of human, environmental and socio-economic well-being. We are alarmed that the biotech industry is eroding this approach in favour of promoting and protecting the interests of that industry. We reject this shift.

Key concerns in the revised policy include:

  • Abandoning the precautionary principle in favour of creating incentives for innovation for industry. This shift means moving from the aim of protecting against harm to promoting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by reducing safety procedures;
  • Shifting focus from “GMOs” to “biotechnology” thereby wrongly implying that GMOs are as safe as other forms of biotechnology such as conventional breeding or tissue culture;
  • Removing provisions on liability and redress. These made producers of GMOs responsible for paying for and cleaning up damages arising from GMOs;
  • Increasing the focus on intellectual property rights that are skewed in favour of corporations and away from communities;
  • Broadly promoting the benefits of GMOs as described by the producers of GMOs, without interrogating the many problems associated with the technology, such as increased indebtedness of farmers, quality issues in Bt cotton, development of insect and weed resistance, loss of markets due to consumer rejection and many more;
  • Falsely asserting that GMOs will benefit smallholders; and
  • Dismantling current institutional arrangements with no clear replacement structure that clearly outlines new responsibilities, hierarchies and procedural pathways.

Potential risks of GMOs must be recognised:

Governments around the world retain a precautionary stance to GMOs. There is an extensive body of literature that highlights many risks associated with GMOs, these include that:

  • GMOs and related pesticides and herbicides pose health risks
  • GMOs pose environmental risks
  • GMOs are not appropriate for smallholders
  • GMOs contribute to corporate control of the food system
  • GMOs restrict access to markets thereby threatening livelihoods

Real solutions to hunger, poverty and degraded environment must be sought

The fact remains that Zambia is facing a series of crisis level challenges currently – socially, economically and ecologically. Poverty and inequality has risen exponentially. We are now ranked as one of the most malnourished countries in Africa. Women are affected the worst across the board.  These are long term developmental crises.

The majority of the our population rely on agriculture and local food system related livelihood activities – from production through to formal and informal retailing in both urban and rural areas. Very well-known problems farmers face in Zambia are lack of market, late delivery of and cost of inputs, lack of accessible land, soil infertility, erratic rainfall and lack of irrigation, lack of infrastructure, lack of extension services, lack of social and infrastructural support to retailers and traders (exemplified by the recent chlorella and trader dislocations). None of these problems that keep our population poor – and our youth malnourished and restless – are going to be solved by GMO proposed solutions.

Therefore we state:

If we are to face climate change and deal effectively with environmental degradation, poverty, hunger and the extensive malnutrition due to lack of diverse diets in Zambia, it is vital to invest in farming systems that are designed to create resilience and social equity.

We fully agree with the findings of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) that GMOs have primarily benefited transnational corporations and the wealthy, rather than the poor and hungry of the world. The IAASTD found little solid evidence to support claims that GMOs have contributed to equitable or sustainable development or will do so in the future, but instead raised substantial questions about their social, health and environmental impacts. This is same stand that Late President Mwanawansa stood for years before, and the same principled stand that all subsequent Presidents have remained steadfast in upholding.

We have been assured by the New Minister of Agriculture that Government position on GMOs has not changed. Zambia as a nation remains opposed to GMOs – and citizens have a right to say no to GMOs if they so wish. Therefore – as people of Faith, in agriculture training institutions, civil society, farmers and consumers alike, we raise our voice of concern and distress about the attempts to amend the exemplary National Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy. We support our leaders in their efforts to prioritise the rights of small holder farmers in Zambia, over and above foreign neo-colonial agriculture systems that extract wealth from the poor and from the country, and undermine the health of our families, our farming systems and our environment.

We ask Zambia’s leaders to remain strong; to resist and reject the unjust and unethical efforts of foreign pressure to weaken national laws for the benefit of corporate profits.

Signed: Emmanuel Mutamba, ZAAB Chairperson,

7 March 2018

Download PDF  ZAAB postiion statement 7 March 2018 2

Position on GMOs and the Revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003 March 2018

  

Position on GMOs and the Revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003
March 2018

Zambia must continue to uphold the highest biosafety standards

Zambia’s approach to biosafety since the development of the Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003 has been cautious and aimed at ensuring high standards of human, environmental and socio-economic well-being. We are alarmed that the biotech industry is eroding this approach in favour of promoting and protecting the interests of that industry. We reject this shift.

Key concerns in the revised policy include:

• Abandoning the precautionary principle in favour of creating incentives for innovation for industry. This shift means moving from the aim of protecting against harm to promoting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by reducing safety procedures;
• Shifting focus from “GMOs” to “biotechnology” thereby wrongly implying that GMOs are as safe as other forms of biotechnology such as conventional breeding or tissue culture;
• Removing provisions on liability and redress. These made producers of GMOs responsible for paying for and cleaning up damages arising from GMOs;
• Increasing the focus on intellectual property rights that are skewed in favour of corporations and away from communities;
• Broadly promoting the benefits of GMOs as described by the producers of GMOs, without interrogating the many problems associated with the technology, such as increased indebtedness of farmers, quality issues in Bt cotton, development of insect and weed resistance, loss of markets due to consumer rejection and many more;
• Falsely asserting that GMOs will benefit smallholders; and
• Dismantling current institutional arrangements with no clear replacement structure that clearly outlines new responsibilities, hierarchies and procedural pathways.

Potential risks of GMOs must be recognised:

Governments around the world retain a precautionary stance to GMOs. There is an extensive body of literature that highlights many risks associated with GMOs, these include that:
• GMOs and related pesticides and herbicides pose health risks
• GMOs pose environmental risks
• GMOs are not appropriate for smallholders
• GMOs contribute to corporate control of the food system
• GMOs restrict access to markets thereby threatening livelihoods

Real solutions to hunger, poverty and degraded environment must be sought

The fact remains that Zambia is facing a series of crisis level challenges currently – socially, economically and ecologically. Poverty and inequality has risen exponentially. We are now ranked as one of the most malnourished countries in Africa. Women are affected the worst across the board. These are long term developmental crises.

The majority of the our population rely on agriculture and local food system related livelihood activities – from production through to formal and informal retailing in both urban and rural areas. Very well-known problems farmers face in Zambia are lack of market, late delivery of and cost of inputs, lack of accessible land, soil infertility, erratic rainfall and lack of irrigation, lack of infrastructure, lack of extension services, lack of social and infrastructural support to retailers and traders (exemplified by the recent chlorella and trader dislocations). None of these problems that keep our population poor - and our youth malnourished and restless - are going to be solved by GMO proposed solutions.

Therefore we state:

If we are to face climate change and deal effectively with environmental degradation, poverty, hunger and the extensive malnutrition due to lack of diverse diets in Zambia, it is vital to invest in farming systems that are designed to create resilience and social equity.

We fully agree with the findings of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) that GMOs have primarily benefited transnational corporations and the wealthy, rather than the poor and hungry of the world. The IAASTD found little solid evidence to support claims that GMOs have contributed to equitable or sustainable development or will do so in the future, but instead raised substantial questions about their social, health and environmental impacts. This is same stand that Late President Mwanawansa stood for years before, and the same principled stand that all subsequent Presidents have remained steadfast in upholding.

We have been assured by the New Minister of Agriculture that Government position on GMOs has not changed. Zambia as a nation remains opposed to GMOs – and citizens have a right to say no to GMOs if they so wish. Therefore - as people of Faith, in agriculture training institutions, civil society, farmers and consumers alike, we raise our voice of concern and distress about the attempts to amend the exemplary National Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy. We support our leaders in their efforts to prioritise the rights of small holder farmers in Zambia, over and above foreign neo-colonial agriculture systems that extract wealth from the poor and from the country, and undermine the health of our families, our farming systems and our environment.
We ask Zambia’s leaders to remain strong; to resist and reject the unjust and unethical efforts of foreign pressure to weaken national laws for the benefit of corporate profits.

Signed: Emmanuel Mutamba, ZAAB Chairperson,
7 March 2018

**your signature**

55 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

Welcome to the new ZAAB website!

We have walked a celebrated journey together to come to this point today. Seven years ago, four organisations and concerned individuals came together in common concern: the weakening of the Zambian biosafety legislation and an equitable food and agriculture future for all in Zambia.

From our 2010 roots in a common advocacy voice, the civil society alliance has grown in membership and scope of work. Today the ZAAB network has 16 organisational members, local and regional associates and a broad individual membership base. The launch of our website is timely as civil society comes together in 2018 to raise common voice of concern that once again Zambia’s acclaimed biosafety position is being threatened.

We are grateful to our members, individual citizenry efforts, our technical partners and The Seed and Knowledge Initiative for your ongoing support and collaborative actions.

CSO’s comments on the proposed revision of the 2003 Zambian Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy- 4/12/2017

To whom it may concern,

Please find from the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB) some comments on the draft revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy, as made available to the National Biosafety Authority, The Governing Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, and concerned stakeholders of Zambia. The comments follow the short notice “Stakeholder Consultative Meeting on the Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy”, that three ZAAB representatives participated in, held 25-26 September 2017 in Livingstone. We trust that these written comments will further submissions made at the brief Consultative Meeting, and be duly considered and included in the on-going consultation and policy review process.

Introduction

ZAAB received the Draft Revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy one week prior to “The Stakeholder Consultative Meeting on the Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy”, held 25-26 September 2017 in Livingstone. The policy as presented in September, reads like a hastily put together document that excludes some of the more crucial aspects of the original policy. The document is not very well drafted (typos, grammar errors, irrelevant/no references). Structurally, the only way that the paper represents any improvement on the original policy is that it now includes definitions as a separate section, albeit these are extremely limited in scope. Through reading of the current 2003 policy and revised draft Policy, some differences and areas of concern have been noted and highlighted.

2003 BBP

The 2003 Zambian Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy (BBP) states that ‘Biotechnology and products of Biotechnology can contribute significantly to economic development of Zambia, especially in the areas of agriculture, health care, environment as well as industry’. However, any benefits will only be realized if and when biotechnological development takes place in a manner which is both judicious and sustainable.[1]

Whilst the BPP acknowledges that biotechnology can contribute to the social and economic development of developing countries such as Zambia, it recognizes the potential harm and danger that the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOS) may pose to the environment. The role of the BPP is identified as supporting the development of research and industrial capacity to apply biotechnology to enhance Zambia’s socio-economic and environmental well-being, and allows for the subsequent establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and Biosafety Advisory Committee.1

The tone of the BBP suggests that the Policy is not advocating acceptance of GMOs, but rather attempting to open up a discussion around biosafety and to put together some regulatory framework for managing biotechnology adoption whilst minimizing any adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment and to elevate biological diversity conservation over trade. In both the Introduction and Background Sections of the BBP, the focus is squarely on GMOs and the risks posed by the non-existence of legislation on GMOs, to the Country and the importance of safeguarding against adverse impacts.

Revised Draft BBP

In the Revised Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy, hereinafter referred to as the Revised Policy (RP), the discussion is focussed on broader biotechnological applications covering pharmaceutical development, therapeutic applications, biofuel production, modified crops production, waste management, lack of capacity and educational offerings, food production and processing and forensic studies. The stated rationale for a revision is that, despite the existence of the 2003 BBP, biotechnological application was limited to disease diagnosis, classification of organisms and tissue culture and that no genetically modified organism (GMOs) were produced in Zambia. Furthermore, evolution in the fields of Biotechnology and Biosafety has necessitated a revision of the 2003 BBP.

The 2003 Policy was developed to acknowledge the increasing role of Biotechnology in the world and to caution against its application without proper legislative and monitoring measures being in place and to pave the way for the development of such instruments. It was not developed “to promote the benefits of biotechnology”, as claimed in the RP (Page 5 of the RP).

The Situation Analysis in the RP attempts to draw a link between what it sees as the benefits of modern biotechnology in enhancing food security through improved production. Food security is when “all people have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and. healthy life”.[2] Food security is substantially more complex than securing adequate production, but is dependent also on other factors, including supply and access. Adequate production of food, as it is claimed will follow with the adoption of modern biotechnology, does not ensure food security.

Liability and Redress

The provisions on Liability and Redress in the BBP have been removed from the RP and there are now no provisions for how biosafety liability and redress shall be implemented. The Zambian Biosafety Act of 2007, takes a precautionary stance and has provision for developing a mechanism for liability and redress for any harm or damage caused to human and animal health, non-genetically modified crop, socio-economic conditions, biological diversity or the environment by any GMO or a product of a GMO. The scope of socio-economic impacts is broad and means any direct or indirect effect to the economy, social or cultural practices, livelihoods, indigenous knowledge systems or indigenous technologies as a result of the import, transit, contained use, release or placing on the market of a genetically modified organism or a product of a genetically modified organism.

As per the Biosafety Act (No 10. of 2007), those who bring GMOs into Zambia will be liable for any resulting health, economic and environmental damage. Whilst there may be a case to be made for the revision of Zambia’s Liability and Redress provisions to ensure that they are guided and informed by the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress which was adopted by Parties to the Biosafety Protocol on October 15, 2010 (but not yet ratified by Zambia), the outright omission of Liability and Redress in the RP is of grave concern. Rules and procedures on liability and redress are a necessary component of any biosafety regime as at a minimum, they define the scope of the rules and procedures, the nature of the liability/ies, the channeling of the liability and the exemptions from liability. Furthermore, other aspects including the nature and scope of redress, definitions of what constitutes damage, who may bring claims (standing), acceptable defense claims, administrative justice provisions, limits of liability and compensation and insurability will also be covered.

This is essential to protect the interests of all parties and rules on liability and redress help encourage countries, as well as individuals, companies and other organizations to comply with international environmental norms. The possibility of having to pay for any damage caused will ensure that greater care is taken when any activities are undertaken.

Guiding Principles

The key Guiding Principles included in the BBP and RP differ as indicated in Table 1. In the RP, the principles are merely listed and the intent behind some of these is not clear as no further discussion is included in the document about each of these principles. This is unlike in the BBP where each principle is discussed.

Importantly, the Precautionary Principle is the first Guiding Principle in the BBP whereas in the RP, the Precautionary Principle is listed last as a guiding principle and not mentioned further in the document. The Precautionary Principle is important in that it allows for the recognition of uncertainty, allowing countries to err on the side of caution when there is lack of scientific certainty about the possible harm genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may cause. It also requires communication of any uncertainty to the public.

 

 

 

Table 1: Guiding Principles in the BBP and RP. Where there is substantial overlap in the principles of each, the corresponding blocks have been shaded

 

BBP RP
The Precautionary Principle Innovativeness
Advanced Informed Agreement Sustainability
Undesirable Effects of GMO(s) and Products Thereof Participatory
Risk Assessment Partnership
Socio-Economic Impact Responsibility;
Public Participation Ethical principles
Liability and Redress Access and benefit sharing to genetic resources and technology.
Conservation of the Biological Diversity and Trade Precautionary principle
Rights over Genetic Resources and Technologies

 

The Term “GMO”

Throughout the RP, the discussion focuses on Biotechnology and its application with minimal mention of the term GMO. “GMOS” are included in the definitions and mentioned again as part of the rationale for the revision of the policy. In the Situation Analysis, reference is made to “cotton to control weeds and prevent insect attack” and to research on other crops including “wheat, rice, bananas, cassava, potatoes, sorghum and cow peas. The on-going trials focus on traits of high relevance to challenges facing Africa, including drought, efficiency of nitrogen use, salt tolerance, nutritional enhancement, as well as resistance to tropical pests and diseases.” The informed reader may infer that within the context of modern biotechnology, that GMOs are what are being referred to here but the explicit omission of the term GMO, lends a degree of opacity to the document that makes a mockery of the avowed transparent and participatory approach.

Mission Statement/Vision

The Vision of the RP may be intended to replace the Mission Statement of the 2003 policy which highlighted the “judicious use and regulation of modern biotechnology” with “minimum risks to human and animal health, the environment and biological diversity”. This Vision is silent on these aspects and promotes only the application of biotechnology, without providing a framework for such application.

 Small-scale Farmers

In the Situational Analysis of the RP, the comment is made that of the 18 million farmers worldwide who planted biotech crops in 2015, 90% were small scale farmers, yet nowhere in the RP is there any indication of how small-scale farmers may benefit from the move to planting GMO crops or how they may be incorporated into the strategy for “promoting biotechnology”. It is not clear how useful GM crops may be to these farmers and what other opportunity cost may be involved in moving in this direction. An honest approach to the experiences of small scale farmers with GM crops would include the controversies in Burkina Faso, India and South Africa regarding the failure of Bt cotton in those countries and the indebtedness of small scale farmers, insect resistance, problems in the plant breeding and suicides. Already in Zambia, high-yield seeds, developed through traditional breeding techniques, have been available for decades, yet the adoption rate by small and medium farmers is estimated at 35 percent. More pressing needs for small-scale farmers include support for their seed and farming systems and a shift towards agro ecological approaches.

Research and Development

An important objective of the RP is to “undertake research and development in biotechnology in order to generate knowledge, products and services” as there is clearly a need to develop such capacity on a broad range of agricultural issues across the spectrum and particularly involving small-scale farmers, to enable meaningful, participative decision making. Developing scientists and researchers and an informed public who can effectively grapple with the challenges posed by GMOS and other emerging biotechnological applications is essential to enable the country to respond appropriately and advisedly to any challenges these may pose. It is not clear from the RP who the target beneficiaries for this are.

Institutional Arrangements

The proposed institutional arrangements are not clear and presented in an organogram with no clear hierarchy of responsibility. In fact, the RP proposes decentralizing the functions of the regulatory body, with no clear statement of how any of this may be achieved. Given the current capacity constraints and challenges being encountered in filling certain positions it is unclear how this may be achieved. This is in stark contrast to the BBP which defined an Implementation Strategy (Page 12 of the BBP) and defined responsibilities for the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) and Biosafety Advisory Committee (BAC) (Scientific Advisory Committee in the Act).

Legal Framework

The Policy makes the comment about strengthening legislation and plans to review the Biosafety Act with no explanation about what the drivers are for such an amendment and/or what the proposed amendments may be, though the suggestion is that there may be shortcomings. What is clear, is that if the RP is accepted in its current form, it is at odds with the Act as written as it excludes several provisions of the Act, importantly Liability and Redress.

The current Act has in place comprehensive measures that governs biotechnology from research and field testing to commercialization and imports of bioengineered crops, ensures that any activity involving the use of any genetically modified organism or a product of a genetically modified organism prevents any socio-economic impact or harm to human and animal health, or any damage to the environment, non-genetically modified crop and biological diversity; sets and implements standards for risk assessment, makes provision for the ; establishment of the National Biosafety Authority and Scientific Advisory Committee and prescribes its powers and functions; provides for public participation, includes a mechanism for liability and redress for any harm or damage caused; provides for the formation and registration of institutional biosafety committees; and provide for matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing. If any, there may be a case to be made to amend the Act to make provisions to take account of new Biosafety, Biosecurity and Bioethical concerns arising from newer technologies and possible associated threats.

The current Policy (BBP) has a strong emphasis on the Precautionary Principle which were developed during the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety because of the recognition that precautionary approaches can help manage the fast‑changing, multiple, systemic challenges that we currently face. It derives from lessons learned in the application of other technologies, such as the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane (DDT) in the global malaria eradication programme, and its subsequent total ban in the USA, which have shown how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be. The Precautionary Principle is scarcely mentioned in the RP.

Sincerely

Mr Emmanuel Mutamba

ZAAB Chairperson

Notes/Timeline

  1. Zambia signed the CBD on 11th June, 1992 and ratified it on 28th May, 1993
  2. Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy – August 2003
  3. On 7th April, 2004, Zambia acceded to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) and the CPB came into force on 25th July, 2004
  4. Biosafety Bill – 2006
  5. Biosafety Act (No 10. of 2007) – Date of Assent: 24th April, 2007. The Biosafety Act has provisions for socio-economic consideration (Article 19 1(c)) as part of other issues to be considered in addition to scientific risk assessment. No regulations to support this.
  6. Statutory Instrument (No. 42 of 2010): Biosafety Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms for food, feed and processing – 2010
  7. National Biosafety Authority inducted on July 24, 2013.
  8. SIs in the pipeline
  • Regulations: The Biosafety (importation of Genetically Modified Organisms for field testing, propagation and contained) use;
  • Regulations: The Biosafety (Exemption of Genetically Modified Organisms)
  1. Approved Guidelines:
  • Public participation, information sharing and access to justice with respect to Genetically Modified Organisms and products of Genetically Modified Organisms;
  • Field work and planned release of Genetically Modified Organisms

[1] Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Science, Technology and Vocational Training. Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy. 2003

[2] World Food Summit, 1996

Biosafety Policy Amendments: In Whose Interest?-25/09/2017

Zambia has been a pillar of strength and model on biosafety in the region. Many people remember famously the firm stand taken by our government against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the early 2000s. Since then, health conscious and environmentally responsible citizens throughout Africa have seen Zambia as a shining example of good leadership in sustainability and social justice.

In the last decades, biotechnology and agro-chemical corporations (Monsanto/Bayer and Syngenta/ChemChina predominately), have made exorbitant profits. They now hold global lobbying power to influence national scale policies. Working hand in hand with trade promoting institutions (including COMESA, ACETESA, ARIPO, NEPAD, and supporting agencies USAID, The Gates Foundation, amongst many others), they facilitate the expansion of neo-colonial industrial agriculture systems and extraction of Africa’s natural, economic and social resources.

Numerous countries around the world have been pressured into altering their agriculture frameworks – particularly pertaining to seed trade and biosafety – ultimately about citizen livelihoods, nutrition and economic justice. Across Africa, national biosafety legislation intended to uphold public interest, is being manipulated to facilitate the growing and consumption of GMO crops.

It now seems that Zambia is the next target. Our internationally acclaimed Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy of 2003 is set to be reviewed today – in Livingstone – by a very small select group of invited participants. Considering the contentious nature of a new draft national policy on Biotechnology, the short notice and limited nature of the consultation process, there is reason for serious concern and question of due process.

Once the National Policy is re-written, the current Biosafety Act of 2007, will also be repealed and replaced. There has been considerable demand from foreign profit oriented corporations for this process to go head – in order to remove in particular – the essential “Liability and Redress Clause”. The clause ensures that the technology manufacturer is held responsible for the negative consequences caused by their product. The standard practice in any industry ensures that if a product is defective or causes harm to humanity or the environment at large, then the manufacturer is held accountable.

The developers of GMO technology do not want to be held liable for the negative consequences of their products: including contamination of farmers own seed and agro-biodiversity; herbicide and pesticide resistance build up and poisoning of natural agro-ecosystems (pollinators, soil, water courses etc.); and the multiple health problems, particularly cancers, allergies and reproductive problems associated with GMOs and Glyphosate (RoundUp poison) use.

The pressure for Zambia to change its National Biosafety legislation comes the same year that 1) Monsanto was held on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and charged with crimes against humanity; 2) Court action in the US forced Monsanto to reveal the documentation it has deliberately covered up that gives evidence of the toxicity of its GM associated poison product, RoundUp. A recent report, The Toxic Story of RoundUp, “describes the origins and growth of the Poison Cartel and the ways in which these giant agri-business companies (Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Chem China, Dow, Dupont, Basf) gain and keep control of their empires, in collusion with governmental agencies; undermining independent science and our democracies”. Close to 1000 court cases have been taken out in the last year against Monsanto by people affected personally or through loss of family members from the Glyphosate caused cancer Non Hodgekins Lymphoma.

Citizens of Africa are familiar with the myths profit orientated companies use to promote GMOs. The same falsehoods will be increasingly used in Zambia. Particularly the misrepresentation that GMOs are needed to feed an increasing world population, and that GMOs are beneficial in a changing climate.

Modern biotechnology does not alter the performance of a crop nor its productivity. Change is made through the insertion of specific traits that the modified genes are designed to express. Either to be a living pesticide (e.g. Bt maize that makes its own poison) or to withstand excessive amount of toxic weed killers (e.g. the herbicide Glyphosate that is linked to causing cancer) – or a combination of both of these traits. In the modification process, gene segments are inserted into hybrid varieties of crops that are already being grown commercially. These hybrids were developed from crops originally bred over hundreds of years by famers themselves and are instead now licenced to corporations.

Productivity of a plant is dependent on a wide range of factors. Unlike local varieties that are diverse and thus still produce something even without expensive fertilizer and mechanised irrigation. Hybrid and GM varieties are bred and tested in very specific conditions. If water and fertilizers are not applied at the exact time in farmers’ fields, productivity ‘potential’ (that is what makes commercial seed so expensive), is effectively made redundant. These seeds are therefore a complete waste of money for farmers. GMOs instead lock farmers into a cycle of debt and dependency on foreign agri-businesses, whilst poisoning the soil and ground water systems, and undermining rural farming community resilience.

The modified traits in modern biotechnology are “novel”. The process does not exist in nature and this allows companies to “patent” (become the exclusive owners) of the GMO. Patents of genetic resources facilitate royalty claims and profit, as opposed to ‘development’.

Once farmers use GM crops, there is widespread contamination through cross pollination and in storage facilities. The organic market is critically constrained by this contamination. To lessen contamination the GM scientists still talk of “terminator genes” that are designed to switch off the reproductive capacity of seeds.  There is always a percentage of escape and malfunction of any technology. The concern worldwide is the spread of ‘terminator genes’ through cross pollination of crops into the wild. The consequence of its eventual effect on food availability and biodiversity is too terrible to imagine.

It is for these and numerous other reasons that Zambia has maintained the globally acclaimed ‘Precautionary Principle’ in its guiding policies.

Faith leaders, agriculture training institutions, civil society organisations, farmers and consumers alike, raise our voices in concern and distress. We support our President Mr Edgar Lungu, in his efforts to prioritise the rights of small holder farmers in Zambia, over and above foreign neo-colonial agriculture systems that extract wealth from the poor and from the country, and undermine the health of our families, our farming systems and our environment. We ask Zambia’s leaders to remain strong; to resist and reject the unjust and unethical efforts of foreign pressure to weaken national laws for the benefit of corporate profits.

Pandemic Fall Armyworm outbreak in Zambian maize fields-27/01/2017

Article prepared by Ms Bridget O’Connor of the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre, a member of ZAAB

There has been debate among scientists, extension staff and farmers about the invasive worm that is attacking Zambian maize this year. It is not like anything seen before in Zambia. Stalk borer? African armyworm? Bollworm?

It is now confirmed by many scientific quarters that it is the Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), an alien invasive moth native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas. According to Dr Georg Goergen of IITA in Benin, it was detected for the first time on the African continent last year in January 2016 and caused devastation in several West African countries. This year S. frugiperda is also in Burundi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi.  Its name “Fall” comes from the fact that it cannot survive the cold winters in North America and the moths return to tropical habitat on storm winds in the “autumn”, which Americans call “fall”.

The S. frugiperda is known to have a remarkable dispersal capacity and is observed to migrate every year from its endemic area in the warmer parts of Central and South America over more than 2000km crossing the USA up to Canada in the North and reaching Argentina and Chile in the South. How it came to West Africa last year is not yet known. Amongst speculation is that the introduction is accidental, that easy air travel has increased phytosanitary risk, that climate change variations in high-altitude wind streams may have favoured the shift from one continent to another.

The Fall Armyworm prefers to feed on graminaceous plants (including maize, millet, sorghum, rice, wheat and sugar cane) but can also attack crops like cowpea, groundnuts, potato, soyabean and cotton. More than 80 host plants have been recorded and there can be host specific variations of S. frugiperda. However the larva (caterpillar) always has a distinctive upside-down Y marked on its face.

In climatic regions allowing constant generations such as Brazil, the third largest maize producer in the world, S. frugiperda is considered the most important pest on this crop and causes damage estimated at more than $600m annually. The economic consequences may not be limited to its direct effects on agricultural production but also has the potential to adversely affect access to foreign markets. In recent years, quarantine interceptions have significantly increased at European entry points and, in 2015, S. frugiperda was reassessed and ranked as A1 quarantine pest on the European and Mediterranean list.

Dr Georgen warns that S. frugiperda is likely to become more damaging to maize than other species of the same genus occurring in Africa because: a) S. frugiperda also actively feeds during the daytime, b) adult female moths lay their eggs directly on the maize plants, c) older larvae become cannibalistic tolerating only few congeners on the same host plant, d) the mandibles have serrated cutting edges easing feeding on plants with high silica content. Damage on maize may be observed on all plant parts depending on development stage of the larvae. On grown maize plants larvae also attack reproductive organs feeding on tassels or boring into the cobs. Following hatching the neonates usually bore into the host plant and develop under protected conditions. Hence control with contact insecticides is often ineffective although is still the most widely practiced management measure.

According to Dr Goergen of IITA, long use of synthetic pesticides and the use of the Cry1F GM (genetically modified) maize in the Americas has led to the emergence of resistant populations of this pest.  According to Dr Gilson Chipabika of ZARI, in Zambia it seems that this population is not responding to most insecticides especially the fourth and fifth instars. Some crops in Zambia have been scorched by the chemicals and many farmers do not have the correct protective clothing to apply strong chemicals. Some farmer families complain of the strong smell and have experienced respiration problems. Many farmers grow maize close to the homestead. Apart from the health problems that chemicals can cause, they also negatively impact on non-target organisms such as beneficial insects (both pest predators and pollinators), birds, livestock and other wildlife. A number of predators can be observed on affected plants here in Chongwe where chemicals have not been used.

Farmers who practice agroecological/organic methods with a lot of diversity and legume intercrops have had less attack than conventional farmers. Some have had no attack at all, some only had a small amount of attack on the early planted maize. On these farms there has already been build-up of a wide diversity of predators which are able to control the armyworm. When African armyworm attacked 4 years ago one of these farmers found that whereas his neighbours on all sides had huge problems, he only had a bit of damage on his boundaries when the armyworms had finished all the grass on the other side. Some farmers are putting sandy soil into the maize funnels which is abrasive to the skin of the fall armyworm and can kill it. It is recommended by these farmers that there be regular scouting and application of sand at first sight of damage. Even better would be to put sand in every funnel of maize at knee height as is recommended at KATC against the bollworm and now it will be even more important against the Fall Armyworm.  Some farmers find applying ash or detergent powder is successful. Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a microbial pesticide permitted in organic farming and effective against the Fall Armyworm. Liquid Bt Looper Kill is available in the country as well as a powder Bt Halt.  Neem oil or crushed Neem seed extract is also effective.

According to Dr. Goergen, in its native range numerous parasitic wasps, flies and other predators have been recorded as natural enemies of the fall armyworm. And that some species, in particular egg and larval parasitoids, are frequently introduced, resulting in noticeable levels of control. We would like to know how the ZARI programme to breed up such pest predators for release is faring.

Dr Goergen also reports in the IAPPS newsletter of October 2016 that there has been detection of promising isolates of nucleopolyhedroviruses (NPV) for the Fall armyworm. These are natural viral diseases specific to the pest and one has already been produced for the African armyworm, SpexNPV. However, according to Professor Ken Wilson, the process of registration for use in Zambia of these biological pesticides has unfortunately not yet started.  According to Dr Goergen the development of biopesticides including the use of endophytic entomopathogenic fungi is in its infancy and needs increasing attention for providing viable alternatives to conventional insecticides. He says there is an urgent need for developing ecologically sustainable, economically profitable and socially acceptable IPM programs to fight the fall armyworm in Africa.

According to a University of Florida publication, the most important cultural practice, employed widely in southern states of USA, is early planting and/or early maturing varieties. Early harvest allows many maize ears to escape the higher armyworm densities that develop later in the season (Mitchell 1978). Reduced tillage seems to have little effect on fall armyworm populations (All 1988), although delayed invasion by moths of fields with extensive crop residue has been observed, thus delaying and reducing the need for chemical suppression (Roberts and All 1993).

Prof Wilson suggests that to effectively and sustainably assure food security in the midst of African armyworm migrations, a robust, country-wide surveillance and early warning system using pheromone traps that attract male armyworm moths by using the artificial scent of mating female armyworms is needed so that farmers are alerted in good time about impending outbreaks. These are used in combination with local weather reports to forecast armyworm outbreaks at a local level – so called ‘community based armyworm forecasting’. The same traps that are used to check for African armyworm could also be used for Fall armyworm – you just need to change the pheromone septum.  Investment in an extensive network of pheromone traps in Zambia could pay dividends and be cost-effective. Knowing if there will be an invasion of a pest will allow the country to be prepared for controlling the pest. Also correct identification of the moth caught in these pheromone traps is crucial.

There is a regional organization ‘Red Locust’ that has the mandate for monitoring African armyworm and giving early warning but the warnings have not been forthcoming.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Setting up effective early warning system
  2. Correct identification of the moths caught in the pheromone traps
  3. Start the process now for entry approval of viral controls specific for the African and Fall armyworms
  4. Research biological control methods of Fall Armyworm, e.g. sand in funnel of maize, greater cropping diversity, sunhemp and other legume intercropping, push-pull technologies.

Information for this article has been collected from:

Professor Ken Wilson, Lancaster University (working on African armyworm for the past 25 years) <ken.wilson@lancaster.ac.uk>

Donald Zulu, researcher/lecturer at Copperbelt University (currently pursuing his PhD at the University of Reading, UK) dzulu@gmail.com

Dr Gilson Chipabika, ZARI gilsonchipabika@gmail.com

Sebastian Scott, Agricultural Advisor, Grassroots Trust sebtree@hotmail.com

Dr. Georg Goergen, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Biodiversity Resource Center, Cotonou, Benin g.goergen@cgiar.org. (IAPPS newsletter October 2016.)

Mrs Gloria Musowa Mwanza, Chongwe Organic Producers & Processors Association (CHOPPA)

Mr Vincent Choongo and Mr Deadricks Hadunka, Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre katczm@gmail.com

Sand technology – Mr Moses Mulenga and Mr Kelly Kalolo, Farmers in Chinkuli, Chongwe

University of Florida http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm

 

 

 

Will the ‘NO GMOs’ Stance by Zambia Stand The Test of Time?- Press statement 7/12/ 2015

Zambia’s long held position of ‘No GMOs’ is under threat. The Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB) is deeply concerned over the statements made by our National Biosafety Authority (NBA) board chairperson, Dr Paul Zambezi, quoted in the Zambia Daily Mail on 7 December 2015. The statements were clearly biased towards the promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) within Zambia.

Zambia’s longstanding ‘No GMO’ position gives the country significant economic advantage. Globally more and more countries are banning genetically engineered (GE) crops and the importation of food products containing GMOs. Zambia is in a unique and strategic position to take advantage of this growing market. Zambia has been applauded for upholding its ‘No GMO’ position, by both the international community and Zambia’s citizens – consumers, farmers, religious and political leadership alike.

According to the above referred media article, “Dr Zambezi said there is a need to amend some of the clauses in the Biosafety Act, which inhibit growing GMO crops, including Bt cotton”.  He is further quoted as stating that: “At least non-edible crops can be allowed to be grown under proper regulatory regime”. Cotton, however, IS a food. Cotton seed oil is used for cooking. Cotton cake is fed to livestock and we drink the milk and eat the meat of this livestock. In this way, Bt would be introduced into our food chain.

The NBA chairperson went on to say: “we need to embark on a nationwide public awareness programme to educate the people about biotechnology and its GMO products. There is a lot of misinformation going on, not only in Zambia, but also in the whole world”. The ZAAB applauds the chairperson’s recognition of the need for accurate awareness creation. However, it is imperative that this information is unbiased and that decisions made by the NBA are in the best interests of Zambia’s citizens, future generations and the environment.

Biotech companies who produce GE seeds are pushing for Zambia to change its biosafety laws so that they can profit from increased sales. GMO seeds are patented and cost far more than conventional seeds. Farmers are required to sign contracts when they purchase GMO seeds stating that they will not save seed for re-growing.  Farmers are forced to repurchase seeds every year. Multi-national companies like Monsanto and Syngenta who hold the monopoly over patented seeds have made billions in profit off their sales to struggling farmers.

The Biotech industry claims that GM crops like Bt cotton will give farmers higher yields and require less pesticides use. This is not true. No GM crop is modified to increase yield. No GM crop can resist drought. Yield and drought tolerance are inherent characteristics of seed breeding, not of the GM inserts that make seeds patentable by the biotech industry. In all places where Bt cotton has been grown: India, China, South Africa, South America – after two or three years the dreaded boll worm develops resistance and returns, often together with new pests that were never a problem before. More and more pesticides have to be used every year to control the pests. Farmers all over the world have been left with higher debts due to growing GE crops. The overwhelming debts have been blamed for the high rates of suicide among farmers growing Bt cotton in India.

Monsanto has long claimed that Glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Round Up and the most commonly used herbicide in GE crops, is safe. This is not true. The World Health Organisation has declared that Glyphosate is probably linked to cancer. There are significant negative effects of Glyphosate to biodiversity and agricultural production, including immune suppression in crops and resistance build up in weeds. The resultant ‘superweeds’ have become a huge agricultural threat and financial challenge in places like the USA and South Africa. Monsanto’s herbicide is already sold widely in Zambia, threatening the environment and the health of farmers and consumers alike.

The livelihoods of Zambia’s farmers and the seeds belonging to them, are at dire risk from contamination if Zambia allows GE crop production. GM crops can cross pollinate (particularly maize but also possible in cotton). If this happens and a GMO gene is found in a farmer’s crop, the biotech company can take farmers to court, for so called ‘infringing’ on their patent rights. Few farmers can afford or win a court battle against multibillion dollar companies.

Zambia’s Biosafety Act is founded on the Cartagena Protocol under the Convention of Biological Diversity. Zambia is a signatory of this internationally acclaimed protocol. A clear priority within the Cartagena Protocol refers to the need to ‘protect human health and the environment from the possible adverse effects of the products of modern biotechnology’.

A key element in the Zambia Biosafety Act is the ‘Liability and Redress Clause’. This clause ensures that those who bring GMOs into Zambia will be liable for any resulting health, economic and environmental damage. This is a precautionary action to protect the nation and its people. The Biotech industry is trying to persuade Zambia to change this clause. It is clear that this industry is motivated by profits and not by health and welfare of Zambia as a nation.

Once Zambia lets in one GMO, it will be more difficult to say no to other GMOs. We need to guard our rights and refuse to be seduced by the false claims of the GMO industry and its beneficiaries. The NBA is in place to protect the rights of Zambia’s citizens and uphold their best interests – their seeds, their farms and our health. It is not its place to promote the sales for multibillion dollar biotech companies. Zambia has said, and should continue to say NO to all GMOs.

The ZAAB commends the government of past presidents; Dr Levy Mwanawasa, Mr Michael Sata and the present government of His Excellency President Edgar Lungu for their courageous stand against GMOs and for protecting Zambia’s ‘NO to GMO’ stand. This has been an envy of many nations around the globe. We urge the NBA to infact advocate for further strengthening of the Zambian Biosafety Act which in it’s current form stands out as one of the most progressive in the world.

Date: 12 January, 2016

Emmanuel Mutamba

Chairperson – ZAAB

 

Member organisations of the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity include:

  1. Green Living Movement (GLM)
  2. Chalimbana River Headwaters Conservation – Trust (CRHC-Trust)
  3. Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (KATC)
  4. Community Technology Development Trust (CTDT)
  5. Grassroots Trust
  6. Participatory Ecological Land-Use Management – Association (PELUM Association)
  7. Participatory Ecological Land-Use Management – Zambia (PELUM Zambia)
  8. Council of Churches Zambia (CCZ)
  9. Chongwe District Women Development Alliance (CDWDA)
  10. Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR)
  11. Caritas Zambia
  12. Organic Producers and Processors Alliance of Zambia (OPPAZ)
  13. CUTS Lusaka
  14. East and Southern Africa Small-scale Farmers Forum (ESAFF)
  15. Zambia Climate Change Network (ZCCN)
  16. Zambia Community Based Natural Resources Management Forum (CBNRM Forum)
  17. Zambia Land Alliance (ZLA)
  18. Zambia Relief and Development Foundation (ZRDF)
  19. Zambia Rural Women’s Assembly