Tracing the evolution of biotechnology

 Legislators on tour of research projects on biotechnology going on at Kawanda, left, and, right, at

Namulonge research institutes. PHOTOS BY LOMINDA AFEDRARU By Lominda Afedraru Posted  Wednesday, March 5  2014 at  02:00 IN SUMMARY Biotechnology is used in agriculture to improve breeds or to obtain particular traits. Though, it has

been like that for centures, what is known as modern biotechnology is at the centre of controversy. Biotechnology has been used by human beings

for a number of centuries with the first

application mainly applied by industries

engaged in the fermenting and brewing of

products. Modern biotechnology refers to the use of

biological techniques to manipulate genetic

material using a combination of cells beyond

normal breeding barriers. An example is genetic engineering to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through “transgenic technology” involving the insertion or deletion

of genes. Types The first application of modern biotechnology is tissue culture, which involves use of either embryos of plants

or meristem, which is put in a medium to grow into shoots. This technology is mainly used for faster

multiplication of clean plantlets of banana and coffee in the case of Uganda.

Scientists in the agricultural and health sector globally are now involved in genetic engineering where crop,

animal and bird species are bred using gene sequencing in the laboratory as well as manufacturing drugs and

vaccines to cure human illness. Transgenic Dr David Talengera, of the National Agricultural Research Laboratories Kawanda, notes that usually scientists

obtain genes for resistance of a particular disease or pest and sometimes to attain a particular food nutrient or to

get a variety resistant to stress caused by climate factor such as drought. “You can get a gene from a banana and put it into another banana variety or get a gene from another plant like

sweet pepper and put it in banana for disease resistance, which is called transgenic,” he explains. Globally, so far, scientists have done research on GM crops for pest and disease resistance, tolerance to drought

and salinity, high yielding varieties which are termed as hybrids, improvement of protein and oil quantity, and

metabolic manipulation mainly for starch in industrial process and edible vaccines in banana, especially in

South Africa. Trait of interest In modern biotechnology, scientists are interested in obtaining a particular gene which will express trait of

interest while other characteristics of the plant remain the same be it taste, the growth period and the yield,

among others. There is also another method used for tracing DNA of a particular plant using molecular makers. This can be

used to detect breeder seeds with specific traits and ensure that the seed being maintained is the correct one.

For GMOs, molecular makers can be used to trace herbicide resistance, insect infestation, diseases and pro

vitamin. Safe application While, the world over, the products of modern biotechnology were commercialised in 1996, the idea was

construed in Uganda in 1992 when scientists at Makerere University proposed research with a GM-derived

bovine somatotropin, a hormone, to enhance beef and milk quality in cattle. Herbert Oloka, who works at the Programme for Biosafety Systems, says between 1995 and 2001, the first

clinical trial for genetically engineered HIV vaccine, ALRVAC VCP205, was conducted in Uganda. This was

the first of its kind in Africa as scientists in the agricultural sector also commercialised products of tissue

culture banana. This resulted into creation of the national biosafety committee housed at the Uganda National Council for

Science and Technology, with the main aim of ensuring safe application of the technology.

smallholder production and strengthening

Background

Despite recent improvements in smallholder production and strengthened institutions, food security continues to be an issue in Africa. Currently, many farmers cannot grow, transport and sell commodities of sufficient quality and quantity to meet market requirements, even to areas in desperate need of staple crops. Poor post-harvest handling, including inadequate crop conditioning and lack of access to quality storage facilities for commodities, is an enormous constraint on farmers’ abilities to produce at levels sufficient to increase their incomes and meet the demand in the region.

Market liberalisation in the 1980/90s brought about fundamental changes to marketing structures in Africa, creating new opportunities but also, often, making it more difficult for smallholders to access markets.

Prior to the late 1970s to early 1980s, the state dominated agricultural marketing systems in most African countries. State-owned grain marketing companies were the main channels through which grains were marketed. Co-operatives were promoted as intermediaries in the marketing chain, distributing inputs, bulking produce and marketing to the parastatal marketing boards. The state owned storage infrastructure and facilities for assembling produce in very remote locations. Pan-territorial and pan-seasonal pricing policies were adopted, often with little or no regard for significant differences in the cost of assembling produce from different regions. Formal grades and standards were enforced at farm gate (by the co-operatives) and other levels in the state-controlled marketing system, in most cases with state-owned milling companies dominating the formal end-user segment of the chain.

The state-controlled marketing systems offered some level of certainty with regard to output marketing channels, producer prices (often announced prior to the harvest), and grain quality. However, by the beginning of the 1980s, it had become apparent in most countries that the fiscal burden of maintaining this marketing model could not be sustained. Furthermore, producer prices tended to decline in real terms as governments were often reluctant to adjust prices, especially when it meant requiring the more vocal urban consumers to pay more. Consequently, many African and other developing countries carried out major reforms in grain output markets. Marketing boards were either abolished or their role was scaled back substantially. In many cases, this process also involved the abolition of grading standards as informal, private traders emerged as dominant players in the grain trade. State involvement in setting grain prices was largely abandoned, and public financing of grain trading was substantially scaled back.

Mixed outcomes

More than two decades after these reforms, the overall outcome remains rather mixed. Scaling back the role of the state in grain marketing lowered the fiscal burden. Huge losses incurred by the parastatal marketing boards as well as their considerable financing requirements for grain procurement was reduced. In addition, pressure to subsidise grain prices was eased. The increased space for private sector involvement in grain trading opened up livelihood opportunities for micro and small-scale traders – with pro-poor benefits, especially in countries such as Uganda where women play a preeminent role in assembling produce at the farm-gate. The emergence of a more competitive marketing system also led to lower marketing margins, often benefitting urban consumers.

Despite these gains, inefficiencies in the grain output marketing systems persisted or were even accentuated. For instance, the involvement of large numbers of micro and small-scale traders as assemblers and retailers has made supply chains longer, squeezing producer margins. Farmers’ organisations such as co-operatives have been marginalised in their role as assemblers. Furthermore, poor rural road infrastructure contributes to the high cost of assembling grain in the surplus-producing communities – the parastatal marketing boards used to absorb these costs and sometimes invested in rural roads and appropriate transport facilities. Access to markets became more uncertain for many smallholder farmers after liberalisation. This is partly because most of the assemblers are severely under-capitalised and unable to absorb large volumes of surplus at the peak of the harvest. Furthermore, limited access to finance for consumption smoothing often compels farm households to sell the bulk of their grain during the harvest season. Consequently, farm-gate prices for grains tend to be depressed during the harvest and often pick up a couple of months later.

The abolition of state-guaranteed pan-territorial/pan-seasonal pricing exposed smallholder farmers to high price risks with little or no mitigation mechanisms. Their bargaining position tends to be weakened by a lack of market information and also by their limited ability to meet household consumption needs without selling their produce – even if prices are extremely low. Already facing the challenge of yield uncertainty given Africa’s predominantly rain-fed agriculture, their increased vulnerability to price risk has only made them even less attractive to formal lenders as borrowers. This does not, however, have to remain gloomy. The new challenges which have stymied the emergence of efficient and rewarding grain marketing systems in Africa can be overcome if innovative market-supporting institutions such as warehouse receipt systems are developed.