In 2018, Ethiopia officially approved a five-year permit to conduct confined field trials on drought tolerant and pest resistant WEMA -TELA Maize. The WEMA-TELA Maize trials had been conducted in 2019 and the second trial was planned for November of that year during the dry season using a controlled drip irrigation system, though nothing of the results was revealed. The Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research carried out the tests as a part of a regulatory approval process for farmers to grow specific strains commercially. Several activists and professionals in the field have asked the Institute to consider the move due to several concerns.

The issue at stake here is one that recurs in GMO and biotechnology debate. Before trying to assess likely outcomes, we are better served first by trying to clarify the use of the two terms. Biotechnology is a broad field of science and covers not only current state-of-the-art technology but also innovations from early day technologies such as what our ancestors used in brewing local drinks, distilling local spirits (areke), processing injera dough, and many more. GMO on the contrary is a product developed by using one element of biotechnology which is genetic engineering. There are diverse GMO products such as GMO maize, GMO cotton, GMO canola, and others. GMO maize, for instance, is developed by inserting a new gene that is not naturally part of maize. The field of genetic engineering allows researchers to insert genes from biologically unrelated organisms (it could come from any plant species, animal, bacteria, or micro-organism).

When it is used rightly and with proper care to avoid the negative consequences, biotechnology is a useful tool for a particular sector; be it agriculture, industry, or pharmaceutical. The key step in introducing new biotechnology is to have adequate study on its relevance and risk assessments taking into consideration the economic benefits, socio-cultural aspects, impacts on human and animal health, biodiversity, and the environment. The risk mitigation measures have to be in place and anyone introducing the GMO has to take responsibility in case of unintended negative consequences. Concerns as potential risks arise because there is an unnatural combination of genes in developing a GMO product and that may result in negative impacts at some point. The reason for having confined laboratory and field tests is also to avoid unnecessary negative consequences to the greatest possible extent.
A reminder here for the readers is that maize varieties currently under cultivation in the country are of three categories, farmer varieties, varieties under cultivation by farmers passing down from generation to generation. These are not modified by conventional breeding. Seeds could be saved and reused continually indefinitely, open-pollinated varieties, varieties developed by national agricultural research centers, and could be saved and reused for the next season. The seeds are good for some 5-6 years and then become susceptible to either disease, pest, or any other stress and need to be replaced by new variety(ies) and hybrid maize varieties, varieties developed by formal agricultural research centers or multinational seed supplier companies, and the seeds are good for only one season planting. This meant that farmers are strongly encouraged to buy new seed every year, instead of reusing their farm-saved seeds for several years. Planting hybrid seeds for the next season brings significant yield reduction that can be as low as 50%.

Pioneer Hybrid was one of the foreign companies registered in Ethiopia to supply hybrid maize seeds some years ago. The main selling point of the company was that the maize varieties would give a high yield up to three- or four-folds of the regular maize varieties grown by the local farmers. However, it became clear that the main motive of the company was to create a reliable market outlet for its product and increase profit. Because hybrids are good for only one season, forcing farmers to come to the company year after year. The first entry point for Pioneer Hybrid was the state farms as they were able to afford the cost of seed and associated inputs. Gradually, it reached individual farmers and it was affordable as there was input subsidy by then. When farmers got seeds on time and the rainfall distribution was good, farmers got a good harvest and were very happy. That raised great interest among many farmers. However, gradually as more farmers were reached, some challenges emerged under the following conditions.

• when the rainfall distribution was erratic and dry spells prevailed; 
• when input prices increased as input subsidy by the government was removed;
• when cost of production for individual farmers increased;
• when replanting of hybrid seeds was practiced by farmers due to lack of choice; and
• when farmers lost the old varieties in their hands and were forced to depend on seed supplier companies.

Challenges faced in growing hybrid maize varieties – from farmers’ experience

The challenges experienced by farmers when growing and relying on hybrid maize varieties, as learned from farmers during various field visits, are summarized as follows.

1. The Overall volume of harvest showed a reduction. Farmers mention that with hybrid maize, a single maize plant produces only two cobs (though a few plants may produce 3 cobs). With farmer varieties, they were getting 4-5 cobs per plant. When grown in the home gardens, two of these are consumed as green harvest and the rest are left for grain harvest.  Therefore, the new hybrid maize varieties generally give less harvest per plant and unit area than farmer varieties.
2. Hybrid maize seed is good for planting only once. It is not good to save and reuse seeds because of their biological nature. Replanting results in significant yield reduction. This in turn affects the seed security status of farmers and creates a dependency on external seed suppliers.
3. Loss of farmer varieties. When farmers shifted to the cultivation of hybrid seeds, the farmer varieties were left out of production and gradually were totally lost from the seed stores of farmers. This reduced the choices for the farmers.
4. Seed shortage is prevalent. When farmers lost their own varieties, looking for hybrid seeds became the only option. The Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE), the only supplier of maize seeds was not in a position to meet the growing seed demand. Some of the state farms that once were multiplying maize seed have shifted to other products and that heightened the seed shortage problem. Moreover, private companies that started hybrid maize production also left the business as it was not profitable. Hence, the demand for maize seed was much higher than what ESE could supply.
5. Shortage of feed supply. The hybrid maize varieties are generally shorter varieties. Hence, the stalk harvest is much lower compared to farmer varieties that normally have long stalks. That means less feed is available for the livestock. The stalk also has other uses such as firewood for cooking, source of cash income from sales, and sometimes used in constructing fences. Therefore, in reality, less stalk harvest means more loss than just feed supply.
6. Exposure to damage by animals. It is common to see that animals passing by the maize fields located nearby the roadside bring some damage. With the shorter varieties, dogs also bring significant damage by eating the cobs at the milky stage. The dogs easily grab the cobs, break the maize stalk, and eat the grains at the milky stage. This was a strange experience for me as an outsider and it was beyond my imagination.
7. Susceptibility to pests. As farmers report, the newly coming hybrid varieties are highly susceptible to weevil attack. Nowadays, it is common to see some cobs damaged right in the field even before harvesting. The farmer varieties get affected by weevils while in storage i.e. 4-5 months after threshing.
8. Damage by late rains coming at harvest time. The majority of the hybrid maize varieties are open at the tip. The cobs also remain either upright or sometimes bend to about 45 degrees or so upon maturity. Hence, rains coming at harvest season reach the grains directly as the cobs are open at the tip. If the rains continue for some days, the grains start to germinate right in the field. This kills the germination potential (not good for seed) and negatively affects the flour quality as well.
9. Farmers are cheated and exploited by merchants. This occurs during seed shortage periods. Irresponsible merchants grab any maize variety they manage to get in the market and then color it using beetroot and cheat farmers. They pack it in a way that resembles the one supplied by the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise which is colored because it is treated by chemical to control storage pests. Then, the merchants charge farmers three times the price of grain maize in the market.

Issues we should know related to patent rights

The new GMO maize planned to be introduced to Ethiopia is linked to a patent right. That means farmers have to buy new seeds every year from the seed supplier company and are also expected to pay royalty fees. The key aspect of the patent right is that farmers are not allowed to save, reuse, sell, or exchange seed as they used to do for generations. This breaks the mutual social support system especially for needy households facing seed shortage and lacks the finance to buy seed.

Let us see a case that shows what happens when patented seeds are used. The seed supplier company has the right to sue farmers who happen to save and reuse seeds. More than that, the company can file accusations even when there are a few voluntary seedlings that grow from fallen seeds coming from other fields by wind, birds, flooding, or any other means. The patent right gives the seed company the privilege to bring the case to court and penalize the farmer on whose field the GMO seed is found to be growing even without intentional planting.

Comments about the WEMA-TELA Maize GMO

The GMO maize named WEMA-TELA is said to be drought and pest tolerant, and hence claimed to bring food security for African farmers. Although it sounds so good from its naming, there are some concerns related to this GMO maize. Here are my comments and concerns.

1. How can a maize variety be claimed as suitable to all African countries and bring food security in every context? Because, Africa is a big continent hosting diverse agroclimatic zones, food culture, and socio-economic conditions, among others. Is there any exemplary case country that became food secure by using this GMO maize? Knowing the fact that the seed supplier is a transnational company whose prime motive is profit maximization, it is far from reality to believe that this GMO maize will bring sustainable food production and food security. What is claimed by the seed supplier company and the reality on the ground do not match. An example here would be the case of South Africa where WEMA-TELA maize was tried and failed to meet the claims. Hence, the South African government canceled the permit granted to Monsanto in 2019.
2. When a farmer has no seed at hand for the coming season, how is it possible to ensure food security? A farmer without seed means that his/her livelihood is at stake. That is why traditional farmers give priority attention and take the utmost care to save their own seed for the next season. However, with patented seeds, farmers are not allowed to save, reuse, sell, or exchange seed with other farmers. Having this scenario, how is the GMO seed supply system going to bring food security to farmers? For food producer farmers under the Ethiopian context, seed security is key to food security.
3. Farmers are forced to buy new seeds every year from the seed supplier company. Because it is linked to the patent right, farmers have to pay royalty fees as well. For example, farmers growing GMO canola in Canada were paying Monsanto Co. a license fee of $15 per acre^3,7. Therefore, farmers become dependent on the company for their seed supply every year. How is this system contributing to food security? Once the seed company gets entry and farmers lose the choices at hand, the company will be the sole supplier and could increase prices, may double or even set higher. Because, the real motive of the seed company is profit maximization, not the food security of farmers as such.
4. The WEMA-TELA maize is a genetically uniform variety. How can it do well across different agroecological conditions of Africa? How many varieties are provided to farmers to make choices? How long will these varieties thrive giving good and stable yield? Real-life experience tells us that newly developed improved varieties have a limited life span and need to be replaced by new ones after some years. Given the growing climate change-related challenges, how is it possible to build the adaptive capacity of farmers without having a diversity of seeds?
5. Assuming that the GMO maize tolerates drought and pests as claimed, there are possibilities that new diseases may emerge at any time and could affect the GMO maize. Because it is genetically uniform, it might be possible to experience total crop loss. An example was what happened with the UG99 case on wheat some years back. The improved bread wheat variety (qubsa) widely grown by then was totally devastated. Because the rust affected not only the grain harvest but also the leaves and stem. Hence, farmers lost both the grain harvest (food) and the straw which is the main source of animal feed.
6. As experiences show, pests are changing and adapting themselves to pesticide chemicals through time. In some other cases, new pests emerge and turn out to be very problematic. Because it becomes difficult to control using the chemicals already in use. For example here is the case of the pink ball worm on Bt cotton. Is there any mechanism to ensure that the pest-resistant trait will be stable over time? For how long?
7. There is a risk of losing non-target life forms. These include: small birds and beneficial insects mainly pollinators such as bees, butterflies, wasps, etc. that feed on maize flowers. Chemicals sprayed to control other crop pests may also affect these beneficial insects. Is there a strategy devised to avoid such undesirable effects?
8. There is a risk of genetic contamination to nearby fields that are planted with non-GMO maize. In maize growing areas, all farmers grow maize during the main cropping season. The pollens travel long distances by wind and pollinator insects. Under this condition, how is it possible to control genetic contamination? How can a farmer who decided to grow GMO maize is able to control contamination of neighboring fields? Is there any technology at hand that can detect if there is genetic contamination or not in the field?

Concluding Remarks

The GMO maize (WEMA-TELA) is branded as a solution for food insecurity across Africa. Africa is not a small village as such. Let alone the continent, Ethiopia as a country hosts huge diversity in agroclimatic zones, soils, and topography among others. Hence, it is not right to simply generalize the whole African continent as uniform and grossly prescribe WEMA-TELA (GMO) maize. The slogan of achieving food security using this maize is far from reality.

Another key point to emphasize here is: how is food security perceived by the seed supplier company? Is food security about one season harvest or does it extend for more years? I would like to recall a common saying the goes as follows: “If you give a person fish, you feed him/her for a day. But, if you teach how to fish, then you feed for his/her lifetime”. The latter correlates with food security in its true sense as the person is confident to feed his/her family for the rest of the time.  In light of this, where does the WEMA-TELA maize case fit? Without a doubt, it fits with the first one i.e. feeding for a day. Simply because the seed is good for only one season.

To this end, all concerned individuals and stakeholder offices such as the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, the national agricultural research centers, university researchers, those in the biotechnology sector, Ministry of Science and Technology/Innovation, the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Lawyers, Environmental activists, Consumer Associations, etc. including media people have a role to play in awareness creation on the key issues. This helps policymakers to have adequate information and then make informed decisions and protect the national interest of protecting food producer farmers from unwanted negative impacts that may occur under the disguise of technology.

GMO issues need serious attention and detailed risk assessments are compulsory in order to be sure that it doesn’t bring undesirable negative consequences. Another aspect to give priority attention is building the national capacity on biotechnology i.e. building technical competence, having adequately trained manpower, equipping laboratories with basic equipment and supplies, strengthening the biosafety laws and related regulatory mechanisms, fill existing gaps, and strengthen monitoring capacity with wider stakeholder engagement.

Till we build our internal competence adequately, it is advisable to focus more on precautionary principles regarding GMOs. I strongly believe that the law should be firm enough and make companies accountable to take responsibility for any undesirable outcome (for example on the livelihood of farmers, adverse effects on the environment, negative effects on biodiversity) that may result from introducing a GMO product.