Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa

Abstract

The tools of genetic engineering and modern biotechnology offer great potential to enhance agricultural productivity, food and nutritional security, and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in Africa. Large and long-term investments have been made in several countries in Africa to access, develop, and commercialize safe biotechnology crops derived through modern biotechnology. This chapter presents case studies of biotechnology applications and progresses achieved in six countries in Sub-Saharan Africa including Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sudan, and Uganda targeting to address biotic and abiotic constraints faced by smallholder farmers and malnutrition. Based on the past 20 years of experience, the chapter identifies constraints, challenges, and opportunities for taking safe biotechnology crops to smallholder farmers in Africa.

Full text

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Open access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universities
International authors and editor s
Our authors are among the
most cited scientists
Downloads
We are IntechOpen,the world’s leading publisher ofOpen Access booksBuilt by scientists, for scientists
12.2%
139,000
175M
TOP 1%
154
5,600


Chapter
Crop Biotechnology
and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
Endale GebreKedisso, NicolasBarro, LilianChimphepo,
TahaniElagib, RoseGidado, RuthMbabazi,
BernardOloo and KarimMaredia
Abstract
The tools of genetic engineering and modern biotechnology offer great potential
to enhance agricultural productivity, food and nutritional security, and livelihoods
of millions of smallholder farmers in Africa. Large and long-term investments have
been made in several countries in Africa to access, develop, and commercialize safe
biotechnology crops derived through modern biotechnology. This chapter presents
case studies of biotechnology applications and progresses achieved in six countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa including Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria,
Sudan, and Uganda targeting to address biotic and abiotic constraints faced by
smallholder farmers and malnutrition. Based on the past 20years of experience,
the chapter identifies constraints, challenges, and opportunities for taking safe
biotechnology crops to smallholder farmers in Africa.
Keywords: biotechnology, biosafety, genetic engineering, GMOs, Burkina Faso,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda
. Introduction
. Smallholders’ agricultural production and productivity in Africa
In Africa, smallholder agriculture is predominant and agricultural growth
and poverty reduction are subjects closely associated with growth in smallholder
agriculture for some time to come. An estimated 41 million smallholders [1] are
the major source of food for nearly all rural and most urban dwellers in Africa. In
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), most smallholders own less than two hectares hold-
ing of cultivable land and are challenged by the low productivity and production
constraints in the middle of the unprecedented rising need for more food, feed,
and raw material for industry. The SSA region alone has a quarter of the world’s
arable land endowment but produces only 10% of world agricultural output [2].
Unlike smallholders in Asia who dominantly grow few crops such as rice and wheat,
African farmers experience diverse farming systems and grow very diverse crops
that include maize (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum sp) millet (Penisetum sp), wheat
(Triticum aestivum), and rice (Oryza sativa); pulses such as soybean (Glycine max),
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), beans (Phaseolus sp.), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea),
and other crops such as cassava (Matnihot esculentus), sweet potato (Ipomoea

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

batatas), potato, (Solanum tuberosum), yam (Dioscorea sp), banana (Musa sp), cot-
ton (Gossypum sp), and sugarcane (Saccahrum officinarum) (Table ) [3].
Crop productivity in Africa specifically in the SSA region is below the world
average (Figure ) and the region constitutes the highest number of food-insecure
population (35.5% of its population) of whom 21.3% are severely insecure [4]
rendering the region increasingly dependent on imported food. Due to this and
Figure 1.
Change (percent increase) of cereal yield and land used for cereal production. (Data source: Computed from
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 2019 Report).
Farming systems  of region Principal livelihoods*
Land area Agric. population
Irrigated 1 2 Rice, cotton, vegetables, rain-fed crops,
cattle, poultry
Tree Crop 3 6 Cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, yams, maize
Forest-Based 11 7Cassava, maize, beans, cocoyams
Rice-Tree Crop 1 2 Rice, banana, coffee, maize, cassava,
legumes, livestock, off-farm work
Highland
Perennial
1 8 Banana, plantain, enset, coffee, cassava,
sweet potato, beans, cereals
Highland
Temperate Mixed
2 7 Wheat barley, tef, peas, lentils, broad beans,
rape, potatoes,
Root Crop 11 11 Yams, cassava, legumes, off-farm work
Cereal-Root Crop
Mixed
13 16 Maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, yams,
legumes, cattle
Maize Mixed 10 15 Maize, tobacco, cotton, cattle, goats, poultry,
Agro-Pastoral
Millet/Sorghum
8 8 Sorghum, pearl millet, pulses. Sesame and
livestock
Sparse (Arid) 17 1Irrigated maize, vegetables, date palms,
cattle
*Source: FAO and World Bank, Rome and Washington DC . (Adapted to show more crop-based farming
system).
Table 1.
Major farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa.


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
other factors about 39 countries of the SSA account for the largest number of
food-insecure people: 424.5 million (40.5% of the region’s population) in the year
2020 [5]. It can also be seen that during the period 1961–2018, cereal yield in Africa
has grown only one fold compared to a 2.5 fold increase in Asia, which had only
26.3% area increase compared to Africa with 1.2 fold increase (Figure ). Therefore,
whatever growth there has been in cereal production in Africa, it was largely due to
land expansion in contrast to Asia. Food insecurity is forecasted to worsen due to
climate change impacts and recurrent drought unless proper and quick measures
are implemented [6]. The region will have a shortfall of nearly 90 million metric
tons of cereals by the year 2025 if current agricultural practices remain unchanged.
Productivity trends do not promise a better future for cereals and roots and tuber
crops as can be seen from cereal performance during the period 1961–2018 average
yield based on FAOSTAT data 2020 (Figure ).
However, more factors are known to involve in constraining smallholder farm-
ers’ crops production and cause yield gaps. Low crop productivity is often related to
biotic stresses such as those caused by insect pests, diseases, and weeds as well as the
inherent low-yielding potential of varieties, and abiotic stresses caused by soil-related
and climatic problems such as moisture stress and drought. The latter is a pronounced
problem of vast marginal and drier agriculture areas of SSA. Crops grown in such
marginal environments are exposed to frequent severe growing conditions. Each
factor is responsible for substantial yield losses annually by smallholder farming.
Furthermore, yield gains associated with high-yielding varieties if found much lower
in SSA partly due to inadequate inputs, poor infrastructure, and market outlet includ-
ing weak extension services. Thus, poor availability of improved technology packages
(improved seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides) makes it hard for millions of
smallholder farmers to produce surplus and escape the subsistence type of life.
Successful mitigation of these biotic and abiotic constraints and institutional
limitations affecting agricultural growth is a task that not only requires political will
and sustained commitment by country governments in Africa, but also a stronger
global collaborative effort to realize enhanced applications of modern technologies
to complement and transform the conventional interventions efforts underway.
Increased investments in agricultural R&D and fast-tracking the use of innovative
technologies such as conventional as well as modern biotechnology and proven
Figure 2.
Yield (t/ha) trends of cereal production in different regions of the world. (Data Source: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. 2019 Report).

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

useful readily available biotechnology products is extremely needed to solve small-
holder farmers’ crop productivity problems. As such agricultural biotechnology
offers enormous opportunities through innovative ideas, techniques, and processes
to drive innovative solutions highly relevant for the needs of smallholder farmers in
Africa [7]. Medium to long-term benefits of using advanced techniques of biotech-
nology that include tissue culture, micropropagation, gene, and marker discovery,
genomics, genetic engineering, genome-editing, bioinformatics, and others through
enhancing crop breeding including indigenous crop species cannot be overempha-
sized [8]. This chapter focuses on the deployment of modern biotechnology such as
genetic engineering tools and products as well as challenges facing adopting coun-
tries in developing Africa. It also presents case studies of agricultural biotechnology
uses and progresses in six countries in SSA focusing on the use of safe biotechnol-
ogy crops to solve key biotic and abiotic constraints faced by smallholder farmers in
the respective countries.
. Promises of biotechnology to smallholder farmers
The rapid advancements in the field of biotechnology offer promising
alternatives to the approaches of crop improvement. Biotechnology complements
and makes the conventional breeding efforts in crops efficient through precise
identification and introgression of genes in a much shorter time period. The
integration and development of biotechnology research in national research
programs is now a prerequisite for current and most of the future science-based
sustainable genetic improvement of crops for various purposes including, food and
nutritional security, improving post-harvest and industrial qualities of cereals,
horticultural and forage crops.
It is clear that smallholder farmers in African countries are currently not benefit-
ing enough from modern biotechnology, which can be applied to transform their
crop production and productivity and bring about livelihood improvements. Most
national research programs in Africa have not yet acquired research and regulatory
capacity and skills to integrate advanced science and cutting-edge technologies in their
research portfolio to solve farmers’ production problems. Although progress is reg-
istered in biotechnology capacity building in some countries, it is far from adequate.
Governments’ investment in agricultural research and development is generally low
[9]. Crop productivity problems under smallholder farmers’ conditions are often
caused by low-level use of improved technologies and damage to crops caused by biotic
and abiotic stresses as described earlier. The biotic and abiotic stresses challenging crop
productivity are being tackled by biotechnology globally and several crop varieties
with novel traits have been successfully developed and commercialized in more than
25 countries around the world to solve particular production problems of farmers.
. Crop improvement programs in Africa
Food security and prosperity in Africa depend much on its agricultural perfor-
mance. Ensuring sustainable development in agriculture is critically dependent
on a sustainable technology supply and uptake. Despite the strong need for robust
agricultural research, capable of tackling production constraints under challeng-
ing agricultural environments, African countries have not shown much progress
in their national research capabilities to respond to food security issues and meet
the overarching national strategic goals for sustainable development [9]. Strategic
measures pursued to realize latecomer advantages in using modern biotechnology to
enhance crop improvement and exploiting existing commercialized novel biotech-
nology products proven safe and impactful, is weak.


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
Reports show declining government R&D spending in the agricultural sector
recently from 0.59% in 2000 to 0.39% in 2016 in the SSA [10]. Thirty-three of the
44 SSA countries have less than the minimum investment target of 1% AgGDP
(Figure ) recommended by the African Union and United Nations [11]. Thus,
most national programs in Africa were not able to maintain up-to-date capacity in
trained human resources and facilities to translate scientific research into useful
products impacting agricultural growth. Conventional crop improvement programs
are increasingly requiring support from biotechnology to effectively respond to
changing market demands. Therefore, African government should play a key role to
strengthen national programs and maintain strong regional and global collabora-
tive partnerships and expedite knowledge and technology transfer. Allowing more
regional integration can help to ensure smoother collaboration, transfer of suitable
technologies, data and information, and allows improved access to products at an
affordable price and quality [12].
Most African countries have not created the necessary incentives for high-end
modern biotechnologies to get well integrated in the research and development
profile of national programs and create opportunities for new products to get to
market. Instead, they depend on other countries that have decided to invest and
strengthen their R&D. They are not taking advantage of this to enable national
programs to expedite adoption and use of better and diverse technologies through
quick testing and approval processes. Biotech products are rapidly expanding to
include not only farmers’ interest but getting more diversified targeting the interest
of industry and consumers [13]. Therefore, a further declining trend of invest-
ment in agricultural R&D over the past 15–20years in the developing countries
with few countries in exception is alarming [14]. In countries with advanced
economies where public financial outlay for R&D has lagged, the private sector
has been investing heavily in genomic sciences and techniques that enable faster
and more efficient delivery of improved crops to farmers, the value chain, and
consumers, targeting business opportunities and crops with the greatest returns
to investment [7]. However, many ‘orphan’ or underutilized indigenous crops in
developing countries have been forgotten and their diversity is threatened [7]. It
Figure 3.
Some SSA countries and their R&D investment share as a percent of AgGDP (except the top ranking the last three
countries, all the others are selected only for representation of the rest). Source: Data sourced from ASTI [10].

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

is highly challenging to rectify this imbalance between public and private research
investment and ensure that crops including indigenous species are improved and
conserved thus equally benefiting from modern biotechnology.
Against all odds and considerable skepticism in African countries even after
three decades of the phenomenal growth of modern biotechnology and wider adop-
tion of safe biotechnology crops globally, some countries have moved forward and
strengthened capacity in biotechnology and related fields of biosafety, food safety,
and intellectual property (IP) management to reap the benefits of integrating the
advanced sciences. The recent progress in approvals of several biotechnology crops
in Africa can reverse the delay in the near future [15–18].
. Role of agricultural biotechnology: narrowing yield gaps
Rapid advancement is made in the field of biotechnology since the discovery
of DNA and during subsequent advancements in molecular techniques and other
“omics” technologies. This has ushered agriculture into a new era of technological
frontiers to tap the latent potential of its biological resources in an unprecedented
way, showing a new horizon of opportunities emerge to develop and modernize
agriculture. Today, modern agricultural biotechnology encompasses a range of tech-
nologies including molecular breeding, fingerprinting, genomics, proteomics, genetic
engineering, genome-editing, tissue culture and micropropagation techniques, and
other advanced applications. This has empowered scientists, provided unlimited
potential, to develop new strategies to harness genetic potentials for solving current
and emerging crop production challenges. Therefore, biotechnology has provided a
unique capacity to successfully fighting back the continuing battle against diseases,
pests, and environmental stresses that are global threats to the survival of mankind.
Genetic engineering, a part of modern biotechnology, involves the manipulation of
the gene(s) of crop species by introducing, eliminating, or editing specific gene(s)
through modern molecular techniques.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the public sector began supporting biotech research
with lots of anticipations to advance the use of genetic engineering in agriculture
soon to be taken over by the private sector. The first genetically modified (GM)
plants were successfully developed as early as 1983 using antibiotic-resistant
tobacco and petunia. In 1990, China started to commercialize GM tobacco for virus
resistance followed by the Flavr Savr tomato in the United States. By 1995 and 1996,
several transgenic crops were approved for large-scale use. Since the first commer-
cial delivery in 1996, millions of smallholder farmers around the world have become
beneficiaries of the multiple benefits from growing GM crops [19, 20].
Farmers are primary beneficiaries of the improved production and associated
positive environmental, socio-economic, health impacts [21]. The rapid adoption
and expansion of biotech crops reflect the substantial multiple benefits realized by
farmers in industrial and developing countries. To date, of interest to farmers are
several GM crops with enhanced input traits, such as disease (viral, fungal, bacte-
rial) and insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, and resistance to environmental
stresses such as drought, improved processing quality, improved product shelf life,
and nutrient-enhanced crops available for commercial production.
Recent data [19] shows global acreage of only four biotech crops, corn, soybean,
cotton, and canola has reached 190.4 million hectares in 2019 from 1.7 million
hectares in 1996, which is on average 7.9 million hectares growth per year impact-
ing crop production and productivity [22]. In recent years, the novel technique
of genome-editing (GE) has been developed for targeted genome modification in
plants with a high potential of increasing genetic diversity or correcting genetic


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
Country GE crops researched, under testing, under approval process
and/or approved
Commercialization (year)
Burkina Faso Cowpea (insect resistance to Maruca pest); Bt cotton resistance to
insect pest Bollworm)
Rice (Resistance to Xanthomonas oryza)
Cotton (2008) suspended
from production in 2016*
Cameroon Cotton (stacked insect resistance and herbicide tolerance)
Egypt Wheat, Potato, Maize Commercial production
suspended in 2012
Ethiopia Cotton (insect resistance); Enset (Xanthomonas wilt (BXW)
resistance), Maize (insect resistance, drought tolerance)
Bt cotton (2018)
Ghana Rice (nitrogen use efficiency/water use efficiency and salt
tolerance), cowpea (insect resistance to Maruca pod borer insect
pest), Rice
Kenya Cotton (insect resistance), Maize (insect resistance, drought
tolerance, and stack of insect resistance and drought tolerance),
Cassava (brown streak disease-CBSD), Banana (Xanthomonas
wilt (BXW) resistance), Sweet potato (resistance to sweet potato
virus disease), Gypsophila flower, Sorghum (biofortification)
Bt cotton (2019); Cassava
Brown Streak Disease
(CBSD) resistant Cassava
(2020); Import ban on GM
since 2012
Malawi Banana plantain (bunchy top resistance), Banana (bunchy top
disease resistance), Cowpea (insect resistance), Cotton (insect
resistance);
Bt cotton (2018)
Mauritius Sugarcane
Mozambique Maize (and stack of insect resistance, drought tolerance), Cotton
(insect resistance)
Nigeria Cotton (insect resistance), Maize (insect resistance, herbicide
tolerance HT Soybeans, Cassava (delayed postharvest starch
deterioration), Cassava (Tuber size increase)cowpea (insect
resistance to Maruca pest), Sorghum (biofortification), Rice
(nitrogen use, water efficiency, and salt tolerance -NEWEST)
Insect resistance and drought tolerance(Maize)
Cotton (2018)
PBR Cowpea (2019)
Bt Maize (2021)
South Africa Cotton (insect resistance, herbicide tolerance multi-stack),
Maize (insect resistance, drought tolerance, and stack of insect
resistance and drought tolerance), Soybean (stacked trait with
modified fatty acid composition); sugarcane (insect resistance);
Wheat (insect resistance), Potato (insect resistance), Sugar beet,
Tomato, Sweet potato, Cucurbits, Ornamental bulbs, Cassava;
Apple, Strawberry, Apricot, Peach, Table grapes, Banana (data of
traits for these crops has not been obtained).
Bt cotton (1997)
Bt- Maize (1998)
Bt- & Dt-Maize (2018?)
Soybean (2001)
Sudan Cotton (insect resistance) Bt cotton (2012)
eSwatini Cotton (insect resistance) Bt cotton (2019)
Tanzania Maize (drought tolerance; stacked for insect resistance and
drought tolerance)
Uganda Banana (Xanthomonas wilt (BXW) resistance, Black Sigatoka
resistance, Pro-vitamin A, Nematode and weevil resistance),
Cassava (Cassava mosaic disease virus, Cassava whitefly
resistance, Cassava mosaic disease virus, cassava brown streak
disease virus resistance), Cotton (Bollworm resistance, herbicide
tolerance), Maize (Insect resistance (stemborer), Drought
tolerance, Drought tolerance and insect resistance (stacked
genes), Rice (Nitrogen use efficiency, salt tolerance, water
use efficiency), Sweet potato (Weevil resistance), Soyabean
(Herbicide tolerance), Potato (Potato blight resistance).
Source: ISAAA (), ISAAA Biotech Updates (), ISAAA Biotech Update ().
Table 2.
Genetically engineered (GE) crops researched, under testing, approval or commercialization in different
countries of Africa.

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

defects. The simplicity and high efficiency of these tools have made it optimal for
precise genome editing, heralding a new frontier in the—“Gene-revolution”—and
in the development of modern biotechnology.
GM technology has been targeting some of the yield constraints and successful
technologies have been commercialized in Africa for different crops such as insect
resistance (maize, cotton, soybean, brinjal, cowpea), disease resistance (cassava,
potato, sweet potato), better nutrition and quality (rice, potato, sorghum, banana).
Some of these technologies are now successfully tested or grown in some countries
of Africa (Table ). Globally, by the end of 2019, a total of 71 countries (exclud-
ing EU countries) [19] issued regulatory approvals for GM crops, of these 11 were
African countries. Total approval granted between 1992 and 2018 has reached
4349 from 70 countries (28 countries from EU) for food (2063), feed (1461), and
environmental release or commercial cultivation (825) of GM plants [23]. In 2020
alone, 43 approvals were recorded for GM crops globally, involving 33 varieties
from 12 countries, and eight of them are new varieties [22]. In 2019, four countries
in Africa have given commercially approved for GM crops namely Ethiopia, (Bt
cotton), Malawi (Bt cotton), Kenya (Bt cotton), and Nigeria (PBR cowpea) for the
first time. Nigeria had additional approval for TELA maize in October 2021 and
Kenya approved GM Cassava in June 2021. The TELA maize is built on the progress
made from a decade of excellent breeding work under the WEMA project and work-
ing toward introducing the Bt- gene to WEMA, water-efficient varieties for drought
tolerance [15, 16].
Despite several crops under testing for a long period, only a few have been
commercialized in Africa (Table ) [24]. In the SSA, South Africa has taken the
lead with an estimated 2.7 million hectares covered with GM crops. It grows three
commodities, namely cotton (100% cover), maize (85%), and soybeans (95%) of
the total acreage [25]. Nigeria follows with three approvals (Bt cotton, PBR Cowpea,
and TELA Maize) since 2018 [17], whereas Sudan stands second in acreage (about
192,000 hectares) from Bt cotton production.
Yield and quality improvements and associated economic benefits of growing
GM crops have been the driving factors for biotech crops’ rapid global expansion.
A study conducted on GM crops and conventional hybrid (CH) maize yield dif-
ferences across 106 locations and over 28years in South Africa has shown a mean
yield increase for GM over CH maize of more than 0.42 MT per hectare in addition
to reducing yield risks [26]. Others reported [27] that GM technology adoption has
reduced chemical pesticide use on average by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and
increased farmer profits by 68%. According to the report, yield gains and pesticide
reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops, and
yield and profit gains are higher in developing than in developed countries.
. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
Since the first field trial of a GM product back in 1987, the world has seen mas-
sive progress in the adoption of biotechnology crops and products and an increasing
number of laboratory and field trials for a variety of novel GM products. Of the
total global acreage (190 million hectares) of GM crops in 2019, the share of African
countries is close to 3.0 million hectares only with South Africa taking the lead with
2.7 million hectares for HR-soybeans, IR/DT- maize and Bt cotton, followed by
Sudan for 192,000 hectares of Bt- cotton [21, 28]. Currently, however, 13 biotech
crops containing 13 traits in 13 countries are under different stages of research and
evaluation in Africa [21]. Crops such as cotton, maize, cowpea, rice, sorghum,
potato, sweet potato, cassava, banana, and sugarcane are either at the stage of


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
Confined Field Trials (CFT) or commercial production status [29]. Since 2018, four
countries have entered commercial production for the first time in Africa namely,
Nigeria (Bt cotton and PBR cowpea in 2018 and TELA maize in 2021), Kenya (Bt
cotton in 2020 and virus resistant cassava in 2021), Ethiopia (Bt cotton in 2018),
and Malawi (Bt cotton in 2018), after approval for the respective GM crops [19, 20].
Nigeria has made a move to become the first among African nations followed by
Kenya that approved commercial use of GM food crops cowpea and maize.
Given global advancement in the use of GM crops, progress in Africa has been
slower than expected [30, 31]. After three decades of global experience on the
safety of GM crops and impressive impacts on the livelihood of millions of farmers,
many countries still are postponing approvals of GM crops. Numerous health and
environmental safety research reports have sufficiently confirmed the safety and
desirable impacts of GM crops and their derived products [30–34]. Such scientific
evidence have not challenged enough the lingering public perception and contro-
versies around the risks of GM crops [35]. Instead, the overwhelming challenges
faced by farmers make it difficult to believe these technologies can positively
affect the situation of smallholder farmers [31]. However, scientists believe genetic
engineering and genome-editing technologies will continue to impact the global
economy with new momentum for more innovative technologies. Countries such
as Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda, and Malawi are in process of
working on clarifying the biosafety context and developing a guideline for promot-
ing genome-editing technologies in crop improvement [36].
. Factors shaping access and availability of biotech products for smallholder
farmers
The commercialization of already approved products is challenged by a wave of
issues along the product commercialization chain. The national research capacity
has been very critical to respond to farmers’ needs for new technologies through
creating awareness to the public, advising policymakers, testing of technologies,
approvals, and helping access to proven technologies by farmers. In the same way
robust regulatory system is needed to respond to applications based on scientific
and empirical evidence. Often this has been a challenge in most countries since
sufficient safety data generated can only be accepted and reviewed again by the
regulatory agency of adopting country. Private and public sector developers apply
step-wise review and decision processes to critically monitor the development of
new products and to ensure that only good events are commercialized. Therefore,
the intellectual property, product stewardship, and commercialization strategy
become key parts of the product life cycle.
The Excellence Through Stewardship (ETS) [37], a global industry coordinated
organization, identifies the key steps in the biotechnology product life cycle which
includes the following: (i) research and discovery; (ii) product development;
(iii) seed or plant production; (iv) marketing and distribution; (v) crop produc-
tion; (vi) crop utilization; and (vii) product discontinuation (Figure ). Product
Stewardship and commercialization are key cross-cutting components along the
product life cycle for the industry to remain innovative and viable. Successful
commercialization of a GM crops, therefore, requires a well-planned strategy with
sufficient information and expertise in a wide range of professions spanning from
research and discovery to market and consumer interest.
In other words, success in commercialization also depends on downstream
activities: functional seed systems and extension systems, strong technology
demonstration, presence of reliable financial and marketing services, and the like.
These are often weak in developing countries including most parts of Africa. The

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

blame on lack of political will, safety concern, or public acceptance for the delay
in the adoption of deregulated products is often misleading. A recent assessment
of stakeholders view on commercialization barriers of released biotech products
shows socio-economic constraints, high cost of seed, weak certification of seed,
weak private sector involvement, inadequate awareness of the technology, and best
practices to be important [18, 24, 38, 39]. Thus, potentially a stronger public-private
partnership in research, product development, and product commercialization in
developing countries holds the key.
. Challenges of scaling-up and utilization of biotech crops
Rigorous risk assessment studies take years to complete only to satisfy the
benefit of the doubt. In Africa, many consider GM crops are intended for use in
industrialized countries and are hence inappropriate for agriculture in Africa.
There is a poor understanding of the use and potential impact of the technologies
on improving productivity. In some countries, GM crops are considered a threat to
biodiversity due to fear of replacing local or conventional varieties and indigenous
crop species and thereby making farmers dependent on private seed companies.
Limited research, regulatory and monitoring capacities, and anticipated loss of
export markets with trade-sensitive countries also add up to the challenges against
wider commercialization of the biotech crops [38]. In countries that have overcome
hurdles of the regulatory system, rolling of GM crop commercialization and access
by growers depend much on what happens downstream the pathway beyond
product development, regulatory approval, and registration.
. Enhancing regulatory decisions for improved access
Delayed decisions from regulatory agencies have a large, negative impact on the
commercialization of new GM crop varieties around the world, but also in Africa
[28]. While some delays can be sustained by some private sector developers, public
sector developers are reliant on funding cycles and their projects are more quickly
discontinued by indecision at regulatory agencies [40]. Regulators can strengthen
decision-making by first reviewing the safety of new GM products and then linking
the decision to national policy goals such as food security, sustainability, and the
economic benefits to local farmers [41]. Linking regulatory decisions on GM plants
to national policy goals, such as achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals
Figure 4.
Biotechnology product life cycle (Excellence Through Stewardship, 2018). Source: Excellence through
Stewardship (2018).


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
(SDGs), will help to clarify which products benefit the community, the environ-
ment, and bring about economic growth [18].
. Seed access
After going through national performance and verifications studies to satisfy
national variety release and registration requirements [29], the product deployment
is carried out by the technology owner, mostly a private company, through technol-
ogy demonstration and demand-based seed supply. In this process, roles and stake-
holder institutions change where the private sector, seed system, extension system,
and other regulatory and financial institutions take over and function in subsequent
steps. These transitions are not always clearly defined where the public sector is a
major supplier of improved seed or where the seed sector is predominantly informal
as in most African countries. Therefore, the commercialization of GM crops is
overburdened with multiple issues of promoting new and approved products.
Weak seed systems and weak credit systems limit product access by farmers. A
recent study on Bt-cotton hybrid seed access by farmers indicates that weak coordi-
nation among various stakeholders along the seed value chain is shown to exacerbate
the problem of sustainable supply and wider utilization of the approved GM prod-
ucts [38, 39]. Lack of awareness of role players, inadequate demonstration of new
technology to farmers as well as poor handling of the new technology by farmers,
and poor extension schemes also contribute to the poor commercialization observed.
Socio-economic constraints such as the high cost of hybrid seed, weak certification
of seed, and inadequate awareness of technology and best practices (seed handling,
agronomy, etc) can become important factors that can slow or block progress in
some countries [38]. This also requires a stronger public-private partnership to
advance the integration of modern biotechnology in the national R&D system.
. Country case studies
. Burkina Faso
.. Country progress
Burkina Faso has signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003. It has an
active and functional regulatory system hosted by the National Biosafety Agency
(NBA) (Agence Nationale de Biosécurité, ANB) currently exercising Biosafety laws,
regulations, policies, and guidelines in the country. In addition, at a regional level,
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has put regional
framework and rules on biosafety. The NBA is hosted by the Minister of Higher
Education but has consultative bodies such us National Scientific committee of
Biosafety (comité scientifique national de Biosécurité=CSNB), Scientific and
Technique Council, National observatory of Biosafety regrouping members from
various ministries and non-governmental organizations.
.. Product development
The NBA has approved different research activities on GM crops. From 2006
to 2015 about 32 permits for different GM cotton activities related to BollgardII,
RRF (herbicide tolerance), and the stack of both were made for import, laboratory
studies, CFT, commercialization, and seed production activities. From 2010 to
2021, there were six permits given for Maruca Pod Borer resistant GM cowpea using

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

Cry Ab or CryAb genes for greenhouse and CFT. Other GM crop permits provided
include for CFT on Bt Maize for insect resistance; greenhouse trial for vitamin and
zinc-rich biofortified sorghum; greenhouse trials for leaf blight resistance in rice.
Only the Bt cotton Burkina Faso had reached the stage of commercialization
and utilization. However, the Bt cotton cultivation was discontinued in 2016 due
to cotton fiber length issues associated with the marketing of Bt cotton. Currently,
most of the research activities are carried out in the greenhouses, cages, and CFTs. In
Burkina Faso, stakeholders support the use of GMO as a solution to food security and
for human disease control such as Malaria. The ANB has been undertaking sensi-
tization of various public entities and various stakeholders since 2009 on biosafety
actions as described by the national legislation and the Cartagena Protocol.
. Ethiopia
.. Country progress
Ethiopia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993, Cartagena
protocol in 2000 which was approved by Parliament in 2003. The country adopted
a tighter regulatory framework based on the Precautionary Principle (equivalent
to “No GMO”) ratified in 2009. The Biosafety bill was debated amended in 2016,
known as ‘A Proclamation to Amend the Biosafety Proclamation 2009’. In 2017, the
National Biosafety Advisory Committee was adopted and in 2018 the country issues
its Biosafety Guidelines. The amended law permitted scientists and institutions to
do research and education pertaining GMOs. This allowed to establish legal and
regulatory systems and build technical capacity to support and manage GMO issues
and approved after CFT of three Bt cotton varieties in 2016 under the procedure
of “Special permit”, a provision in the Biosafety Law for research purposes. This
was followed by 2 years of NPT across seven sites until 2018. The country approved
two Bt cotton hybrids, JKCH-1050 and JKCH-1947 originally obtained from JK
Agri Genetics Ltd., India for environmental release and variety registration. The
accelerated commercial release demonstrated Ethiopia’s government commitment to
support the cotton development to satisfy booming textile industries [29].
.. Product development
Ethiopia considered biotechnology as one of the priority areas in its National
Science and Technology Policy formulated in 1993 [42]. Due to interest to tighten
the non-GMO stand, the prohibitive regulatory system delayed its overall engage-
ment in modern biotechnology, postponed the use of available products, and
hampered the development of the local capacity building. After approval of two
Bt cotton Bollgard I type varieties in 2018, demand for Bt cotton seed for 2021/22
estimated at 3250kg was requested for 1300 hectares. Some level of cross-border
Bt cotton seed also takes place with Sudan and around 3055 hectares around border
areas are already covered with such imported Bt cotton seed.
In 2008, the Biosafety Authority and the NBAC granted a “Special Permit”
approval for CFT of drought-tolerant (WEMA) and insect resistant (TELA) maize
for testing from 2018 to 2023. The isogenic conventional lines were evaluated for
2years in different locations before the CFT. The two-year CFT was started in 2019
under a controlled drip irrigation system for drought-tolerant trait evaluation and
has shown very promising results. The stacked maize environmental release for both
insect resistance and drought tolerance is awaiting approval using existing provisions.
In 2013, Ethiopia deployed GM technology for its indigenous Enset crop (also
called “false banana”) improvement in collaboration with the International Institute


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) for developing varieties with resistance to the deadly
bacterial wilt disease caused by Xanthomonas campestris [43]. The collaborative
research work had begun at BecA, Nairobi at IITA laboratory and later moved to
Holetta Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center (NABRC) in Ethiopia in 2018
after approval was obtained for contained use (Contained Lab Permit). Approval
for testing transgenic Enset under CFT is underway. Further to its endeavor in
GM technologies, Ethiopia will soon engage in testing Late Blight Resistant (LBR)
resistant cisgenic potatoes. Application submitted for CFT is awaiting approval.
.. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
Approved Bt cotton hybrid seed demand is increasing but the hybrid Bt cotton
seeds are not locally available and need to be imported from the technology
supplier. But due to the decline in exports during the COVID-19 Pandemic, the
Bt cotton seed supply system has suffered from foreign exchange restrictions to
purchase seeds. The absence of local seed companies investing in Bt cotton seed has
been one of the key challenges facing Bt cotton commercialization in Ethiopia.
Stakeholders across the cottonseed system must assess the most feasible pathway
to ensure easy access to quality seeds at a reasonable cost, especially to smallholder
farmers. Supporting cotton production with appropriate extension services and
training of farmers and other relevant stakeholders for best practices is required to
scaling-up the use of Bt cotton in the country. Developing innovative partnerships
with technology developers to enable local Bt cotton hybrid seeds production will
help to achieve affordable and sustainable access to GM technology.
.. Public perception and acceptance of GMOs
There is no clear data concerning the changes in the public acceptance of GM
technologies in Ethiopia. However, the transition at policy and political levels is
remarkable; from a stance of “GMO free” advocacy to one with pragmatic consid-
eration to taking advantage of changes and prospects at the global level. The public
perception is expected to evolve considerably due to growing global biotechnology
importance in promoting food security in the wake of climate change. However,
the recent movement following a report by the USDA that recognizes Ethiopia’s
commitment to implementing the amended protocol and embarking on some GM
crops, has sparked severe criticisms against GMOs development in the country [44].
There has been a steep rise in anti-GMO comments following the USDA announce-
ment [45]. It requires to provide the right information to the public and creating the
right and positive public perceptions to help the right policy measures and institu-
tional function with respect to biotechnology products.
. Kenya
.. Country progress
Kenya is among the first African countries that signed the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety in 2002. It also set up a national biosafety regulatory authority followed
by a Biosafety policy signed into law in 2010 [46]. The exercise of dealing with GM
products has seen many challenges such as the one when the government through
the Ministry of Health instituted a Moratorium on the import and trade of GMOs
on November 21, 2012, an embargo that remains in force to this day [47].
To date, two crops have been approved for commercialization use in Kenya and these
are the Bt cotton hybrid, which was commercialized in 2020, and the improved cassava

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

variety for resistance to Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD). The NBA approved the
application for environmental release for GM cassava containing Event 4046 in 2021
[48]. The GM cassava has increased root quality and higher yields [49]. Kenya is the first
country globally to consider a request for environmental release involving GM cassava
crops. Many other crops are now at different stages of regulatory approval. In the year
2021, 36 applications have been submitted for various crops under review [48].
.. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
Kenya’s GMO regulatory framework is robust and active. It is designed for
regulating contained use, import, export and transit, environmental release, and
labeling [46]. The emerging research area of gene-editing technologies in food and
agriculture presents the newest frontier in the area of legislation and regulations
in Kenya [46]. The NBA board has undergone timely training to equip them with
knowledge on the understanding of the regulatory process of genome-edited organ-
isms and products in Kenya [46].
.. Challenges in product commercialization
A strict and arduous regulatory approval framework remains one of the most
important challenges to GMO adoption in Kenya [50]. So far, Bt cotton has been
commercialized and the status of Bt-maize is at the NPT stage. Access to Bt cotton
hybrid seeds, access to credit to purchase Bt cotton seeds, and lack of adequate
monitoring data for Bt cotton is the weak side of the commercialization process.
Among the public institutions, Government Counties can play a role by forming
cotton-producing clusters to support access to Bt cotton hybrid seed and inputs
and access to the cotton market to encourage cotton-producing smallholders. This
exercise on Bt cotton can also be helpful for similar efforts in the future for other
new technologies [51].
.. Public perception and acceptance of GMOs
Public perception of GMOs in Kenya has been mostly negative for a long time due
to bad press and negative publicity about GM products [50]. Kenya had instituted a
moratorium on GMO import and trade in 2012 based on a study by Séralini et al. [52]
that has since been disapproved. The damage, however, had been done and slowed
progress in GM acceptance and adoption in the country. For most of the public,
GMOs were dangerous, and disposed the government to take a reactive action. The
growing awareness on the benefits of GMO technology in the continent and in Kenya
in particular, is seeing an upsurge in attitude change for the better [50].
. Malawi
.. Country progress
Malawi has made significant progress in biotechnology and biosafety since
the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2009. The country has
domesticated the protocol by developing a legal and institutional framework for
biosafety. Malawi developed its Biosafety Act in 2002, Biosafety Regulations in
2007, and enacted Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in 2008. The CFT and NPT
Guidelines, Trial Manager Handbook, and Inspectors Handbook were prepared in
2007. Since 2009, three permits to conduct GM crop trials have been issued under
the Biosafety Act and approved its first Bt cotton for commercialization in 2018.


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
Other GM crops initiatives were transgenic Banana and Bt Cowpea both of which
were terminated in 2019 due to lack of finance to support the research.
.. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
Malawi’s biosafety legal framework does not hinder the commercialization of
approved technologies. Before varietal release of the Bt cotton hybrids, field dem-
onstrations across key cotton-growing districts were done to help farmers with the
potential of the technology (Bollgard II) and hybrid cotton varieties to help farmers
build a positive perception about the benefits. However, the cost of Bollgard II hybrid
cotton seeds was US$30 (MK 25,000) in 2021 became a concern. This means that for
a hectare, farmers spend US$ 123.5 at a seeds rate of 4kg/ha compared to US$ 1.2/kg
for OPVs. The Bt cotton seed grown in Malawi are supplied from India and transport/
import cost make seed prices higher and affects the adoption of the technology by
smallholder farmers. Trainings on GM cotton seed multiplication for local farmers is
underway to reduce cost on seed importation which is anticipated to result into afford-
able seed cost and improve its accessibility and adoption by smallholder farmers.
.. Public perception and acceptance of GMOs
In Malawi issues such as biosafety concerns, public acceptance, political will,
and support influence the adoption of GM crops. Public opinion has not been
contradicting to the introduction of GM cotton possibly due to the absence of
known negative impacts on human health and good publicity during the field
demonstration trials. There is high political will as government is working to restore
the cotton industry in the country. Regulatory decisions have been science-based
and risk assessment is done on case-by-case basis which has built level of trust for
the technology among farmers and the public.
. Nigeria
.. Country progress
Modern biotechnology regulation in Nigeria started in the early 1990s. The
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which Nigeria signed in 1992, identified
GMOs or LMOs as a group of organisms produced by modern biotechnology that
needed special attention because of their perceived adverse impacts on biodiversity
and human health. Based on the Convention’s recommendation, Nigeria ratified its
biosafety framework in 2002. Consequently, research practice began in modern bio-
technology, along with it the biosafety legal regime became apparent. Subsequently,
Biosafety Law was put in place in April 2015 giving birth to the National Biosafety
Management Agency (NBMA) for the implementation of the Act which also
became amended in 2019.
.. Progress in product development
To keep abreast with advancements in modern biotechnology, Nigeria developed
several guidelines including for GM Food, Feed Processing, GM Mosquito, GM
Trees, Birds, Fish, and other animals. The country is the first in Africa to validate
Genome editing guidelines during the last quarter of 2020. Several processing
permits were granted for food and feed from GM maize, soybeans, and others.
Currently, Nigeria has several R&D activities at different levels: research, test-
ing, pipeline, and commercialization. To date, NBMA has approved CFTs for the

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

following crops: Bio-fortified cassava enhanced with pro-vitamin A, iron, and zinc;
GM cassava resistant to cassava mosaic virus, Cassava brown streak disease virus,
and enhanced with iron and zinc. Also, cassava was modified for higher starch;
cowpea modified for resistance against maruca, HT soybeans; GM rice modified
for nitrogen use efficiency, water use efficiency, and salt tolerance and GM maize
for resistance to stem borer/fall armyworm and drought tolerance. The approval for
commercial release has been for GM cotton (Bollgard II) to Bayer Agriculture Nig.
Ltd./Mahyco Agriculture Private Ltd. in July 2018; cowpea modified for resistance to
maruca insect pest and insect-resistant/drought-tolerant maize (TELA).
.. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
The most important regulatory constraints are related to finance and laboratory
facilities. The challenge in product commercialization of GM crops, as experienced
in cowpea, is meeting the seed demands of farmers. Whereas in the case of cotton,
the cost of seeds is not affordable by smallholder farmers, concerted efforts are being
made by various platforms such as the open forum on agricultural biotechnology
(OFAB), in Africa, Nigeria Chapter in collaboration with extension agents to let
farmers get the right information and advisory services on biotechnology products.
Nigeria’s Biosafety Law requires mandatory labeling of products containing GM prod-
ucts or ingredients exceeding 4%, which restricts market access for GM products.
.. Possible pathways for commercialization
Access to improved seed is realized when the farmers can buy the seeds when
they need them at an affordable price. Trust building is critical so that farmers as
pragmatic as they are, have a positive attitude toward GM technology despite anti-
GM campaigns and their misconceptions.
.. Perception and acceptance of GMOs
The Nigerian public has a mixed opinion about GM crops and their food prod-
ucts due to mixed information about the importance of biotech in promoting food
security and the public concerns about its safety and health-related issues. A higher
number of the public in Nigeria believe the country should domesticate the technol-
ogy and build local capacity to develop GM crops [53]. For example, policymakers’
and scientists’ perception on GM technology was examined in Ghana and Nigeria
using semi-structured interviews [54]. Results showed most respondents including
policymakers believe the technology has great potential to solve agricultural prob-
lems. However, lack of trained personnel and weak institutional capacities present
significant challenges to its wider utilization.
. Sudan
.. Country progress
Sudan is a member of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) since 2005. In
2010, a national biosafety law dealing with the application of modern biotechnol-
ogy was issued and in 2012, Biosafety Council was formed. However, biosafety
measures are only partially in place for the implementation of the Cartagena
Protocol [55]. Despite such efforts by the government to develop the biosafety
regulatory system, much remain to be done for the effective implementation of
the protocol on biosafety [56]. The national biosafety law was amended to become


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
“Miscellaneous Amendments Law” (Unification of Environment Councils) and
officially gazetted in Sudan [57].
The first open-pollinated Bt cotton genotype (CN-C02) carrying Bt gene Cry 1A
from which is a specific toxin against larvae of bollworm was introduced by China-aid
Agricultural Technology Demonstration Center (CATDC) and released for commer-
cial production under the name Seeni1 in 2012. The Seeni1 variety was fast adopted
at a commercial scale from 19,300 hectares in 2012 to 61,300 hectares in 2013 [58].
In 2016, the area almost doubled to 120,630 hectares. Seeni1 occupied about 25% of
the country’s total cotton cultivation area in 2012 and 97% in 2014 [59]. After the
successful adoption of the first Bt cotton variety, Seeni1, another open-pollinated Bt
cotton genotype from China (SCRC37) carrying the same gene of Seeni1 was released
for commercial production and named Seeni2 in 2015. In the same year, two Indian Bt
cotton hybrids; JKCH1947 (Hindi1) and JKCH1050 (Hindi2) carrying JKAL X-gene
(Cry1Ac), were also released for commercial production [60]. The area under Hindi2
progressively increased from 7560 hectares to 33,600 hectares in 2021. The total Bt
cotton cultivated area in Sudan since first commercial production in 2012 has grown
to occupy about 98% of the total cotton area in 2021. In Sudan, cottonseeds represent a
valuable oil and cake source. The major concern after the Bt cotton commercialization
is the food safety of its byproducts; however, permissible levels for GMOs intended for
direct use as food/feed needs approval from the national biosafety committee.
Recently transgenic cotton hybrid varieties carrying Cry1AC+Cry2A and
glyphosate-tolerant trait (CP4 ESPS) were approved by the national biosafety
technical committee in compliance with the national biosafety regulations for
further testing. In Sudan, the establishment of national action plans for developing
and promoting cotton exports and harmonizing its marketing policies are seen as
crucial steps to restore Sudan’s position in the international cotton market.
.. Farmers access to new agricultural technologies
In Sudan, Bt cotton is the only GM crop under commercial production since
2012. Additional new transgenic cotton varieties approved by the national biosafety
committee are under testing and will enrich the Bt cotton variety options. The
national seed industry of transgenic crops is not fully complying with the biosafety
regulations due to the limited awareness of stakeholders involved in the seed
industry. This has caused the sub-standard seed to be distributed by dealers.
Almost all Bt cotton seeds for open-pollinated variety are produced by the
private seed sector under the governance of public institutions. The current
situation of seed production could be improved with policy to guide and incentivize
seed producers (public and private) for high-quality seed supply. The trend of
seed demand growth in Sudan has been clear since Bt cotton adoption and requires
comprehensive situation analysis to install a visionary seed production scheme.
On the other hand, not all smallholder farmers can access good quality seed
because of limited financial support and a lack of farmers’ organizations to obtain
agricultural credit. Enabling policies are required for smallholder cotton farmers to
overcome this problem and related marketing challenges.
.. Public perception and acceptance of GMOs
Sudanese public participation in GMOs use debates and its general awareness
is limited. Either lack of understanding or misperception of the technology
predominates. Public-wide formal and informal education on safety concerns
(biosafety and food safety) and GMO utilization need to be strengthened. More
engagement and participation of stakeholders along the cotton value chain would

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

help to have a clear plan for promoting and sustainability utilizing the products of GM
technology. Currently, the adoption of transgenic cotton in Sudan is farmer-driven
and government intervention is highly beneficial to strengthen farmers’ associations
for market access and improving the benefits of Bt cotton to local farmers.
. Uganda
.. Country progress
For the past 15years, Uganda has been steadily integrating biotechnology into
national development processes and developing local capacity. The Uganda national
biotechnology strategy identified biotechnology as a tool to address challenges in
the agricultural sector [61, 62]. The government has been providing support to
build human resources and research infrastructure capacity to strengthen research
development and innovation in biotechnology and played a dominant role in
Uganda. R&D using modern biotechnology tools in crop science was initiated in
2003 at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Center. Other institutions like
Makerere University and the National Agricultural Research Organization’s (NARO)
followed suit to join the effort. Several international and regional organizations
also have been supporting national crop biotechnology R&D including USAID, Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation, ASARECA, CIMMYT, and Rockefeller Foundation.
Through support from the government and development agencies, more than 10
research laboratories have been established for biotechnology research and devel-
opment. The scientific community in Uganda has embraced biotechnology and is
actively engaged in R&D using modern biotechnology and genetic engineering
tools. There has been a growing application of tissue culture, molecular diagnostic
tools, and the development of genetically engineered transgenic crops.
.. Biosafety regulatory system
Uganda ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2001 [63]. In 2008, the
government of Uganda adopted the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy to
provide a regulatory and institutional framework for the safe and sustainable appli-
cation of biotechnology for national development. Uganda’s biosafety institutional
framework includes national competent authority, national focal point, the national
biosafety committee, monitoring and compliance mechanisms, and institutional
biosafety committees.
The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) serves as the
national competent authority and provides regulatory oversight for GMO research
and development programs through the National Biosafety Committee (NBC). To
support the NBC, biotechnology research institutions have established Institutional
Biosafety Committees (IBC) to provide research biosafety stewardship and serve as a
link between the research scientists and NBC. To provide a comprehensive biosafety
regulatory framework for commercialization of GM crops, the Parliament of Uganda
introduced the Genetic Engineering Regulatory Bill in November 2018 to be assented
into an act. The Bill was seconded through stakeholder policy consultations to ensure
establishment of an enabling national biosafety legislation.
.. Country progress
The first field trial of GM crops was conducted in 2007 on genetically engi-
neered bananas for resistant to Black Sigatoka disease. To date, the NBC has


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
approved 17 field research trials involving several GM crops mentioned below for
various crops and traits (Table ) [64–66]. The detailed summary of GM crops and
incorporated traits is also partly presented in Table  .
Like other breeding product pipelines, GM products require on-farm agronomic
and agroecological tests under the guidance of approved biosafety guidelines. In
Uganda, scientists are unable to proceed with product testing on farmer’s fields to
ascertain GM product performance due to a lack of national biosafety legislation
and regulations. Crops such as banana (research, CFT and multilocation trials),
Cassava (CFT, multi-locational trials), Cotton (CFT, multi-location trials), Maize
(CFT and multi-location trials), Rice (CFT Research), Sweet potato (Greenhouse),
Soybean (Greenhouse), Potato (CFT- Multilocation trials) have not been tested
on farmers fields. Research on these crops has been conducted through joint
collaborations involving local and international institutions such as NARO, IITA,
AATF, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Leeds University, Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center (DDPSC), Bayer, International Potato Center (CIP),
Makerere University, and Michigan State University.
. Lessons learned and future prospects
Biotechnologies can help African country’s efforts toward achieving social and
economic development and contributing to the United National (UN) Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) through improving agricultural productivity and
increasing resilience to climate change impacts. As highlighted in the six case
studies, countries in Africa are at various stages of biotechnology R&D and
regulatory capacities. With the recent positive decisions made by the governments
of several countries in Africa, the future holds prospects for the commercialization
of GM products. Research, regulatory, and outreach capacity in modern
biotechnology is seen as fundamental to the promotion of advanced science and
technology in research programs including GMO and genome-editing research and
development.
Identifying policy and regulatory gaps and adjusting to meet current and future
needs would always be required to promote agricultural biotechnology for sustain-
able development in biotech and non-biotech countries. Proactively working toward
building awareness of stakeholders and right public perception and relentless effort
to capacitate policymakers would help to maintain the current efforts in improving
political dynamics toward modern biotechnology and avoid sliding back to the old
rhetoric led by postmodernist anti-GMO and anti-technology activism.
Since it took several years of negative publicity to entrench distrust among the
public, it can only be undone with unyielding and consistent communication and
outreach espousing, especially positive benefits to smallholder farmers and con-
sumers and farmers as champions. Therefore, strong voices are necessary to cham-
pion the adoption of GMOs and genome-editing technologies in countries in Africa.
Misinformation and disinformation, and competing interests inevitably complicate
how modern biotechnology is viewed and its benefits are harnessed in Africa for
smallholder farmers. The science communication should be amplified with mes-
saging centering around a farmer and consumer benefits and contributions to UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The transitions from product development to deployment and commercializa-
tion are often difficult in developing countries. Multiple institutions from the
public and private sector including the farming communities are involved to
operate. This needs to be well aligned and coordinated institutional functions are

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

Author details
Endale GebreKedisso1*, NicolasBarro2, LilianChimphepo3, TahaniElagib4,
RoseGidado5, RuthMbabazi1, BernardOloo6 and KarimMaredia1
1 Michigan State University, USA
2 National Biosafety Agency, BurkinaFaso
3 Environmental Affairs Department, Malawi
4 Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Sudan
5 National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), Nigeria
6 Egerton University, Kenya
*Address all correspondence to: kedissoe@msu.edu
needed to ensure sustainable access and deployment of new technologies/products
by smallholder farmers while keeping product integrity, quality, and excellence
through stewardship. Experience shows the importance of careful handling and
management of new technology with simultaneous preparation for the local seed
systems to ensure that new products are consistently available and affordable by
smallholder farmers. Alternative technologies are needed for widening the scope of
adoption through a healthy market and avoiding negative perceptions to impinge on
efficiency and competitiveness.
Farmers are willing to adopt impactful technologies that can enhance agricul-
tural productivity and their livelihoods. However, closer consultation and under-
standing of their challenges is critical to foster and sustain repeated adoption of GM
crops by farmers to convey a realistic understanding of the production and market-
ing challenges and receive necessary policy support. A clear monitoring strategy is
needed for field management of GM crops and their sustainable use and impacts as
well as co-existence in the farming systems of adopting countries.
© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
[1] AGRA Annual Report. 2017
[2] Jayaram K, Riese J, Sanghvi S.
Agriculture: Abundant Opportunities.
McKinsey Quarterly; 2010 https://www.
mckinsey.com/featured-insights/
middle-east-and-africa/
africas-path-to-growth-sector-by-sector
[3] FAO and World Bank. Derived from
Farming Systems and Poverty. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) & World Bank; 2006
Global Map of Irrigation Areas, FAO,
NRLW & Johann Wolfgang Goethe
University, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany GAUL [Accessed: August
28, 2021]
[4] Sasu DD. Prevalence of food
insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa as of
2019, by level. Statista 2021; https://
www.statista.com/statistics/1190797/
food-insecurity-in-sub-saharan-africa/
[Accessed: August 8, 2021]
[5] Baquedano F, Cheryl C, Kayode A,
Jayson B. International Food Security
Assessment, 2020-30, GFA-31. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service; 2020
[6] Nyiawung RA, Suh N, Bishwajit G.
Trends in Cereal Production and Yield
Dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa
Between 1990-2015. Journal of
Economic Impact. 2020;(3):98-107
[7] Anthony VM, Ferroni M.
Agricultural biotechnology and
smallholder farmers in developing
countries. Current Opinion in
Biotechnology. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.
copbio.2011.11.020
[8] FAO. In: Elcio P, Guimaraes EP,
Ruane J, Scherf BD, Sonnino A,
Dargie JD, editors. Marker-Assisted
Selection. Current Status and Future
Perspectives in Crops, Livestock,
Forestry and Fish. Rome: FAO; 2007
[9] FAO. The Special Challenge for
Sub-Saharan Africa. High Level Expert
Forum—How to Feed the World in
2050. Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,
Rome, Italy; 2009
[10] Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators – ASTI, Boosting Investment in
Agriculture Research in Africa Building. A
Case for Increased Investment in
Agricultural Research in Africa. Report
Commissioned By Au-Safgrad; 2021
[11] UNECA. Towards Achieving the
African Union’s Recommendation of
Expenditure of 1% of GDP on Research
and Development. Addis Ababa: ©
UNECA; 2018 https://hdl.handle.
net/10855/24306
[12] Eicher CK, Maredia K,
Sithole-Niang I. Crop biotechnology and
the African farmer. Science Direct Food
Policy. 2006;:504, www.elsevier.com/
locate/foodpol-527
[13] National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. Preparing
for Future Products of Biotechnology.
National Academies Press, 2017; MLA
8th Edition (Modern Language Assoc.).
[14] Gert-Jan S, Beintema N. An
Assessment of The Critical Financial,
Human, and Institutional Capacity
Issues Affecting Agricultural Research
in West Africa: Synthesis and Policy
Considerations. Background document
for The World Bank. Washington, DC:
IFPRI; 2017
[15] African Agricultural Technology
Foundation (AATF). Strong supportive
voices for biotechnology crucial for
technology uptake in Africa. 2021.
Available from: https://www.aatf-africa.
org/strong-supportive-voices-
for-biotechnology-crucial-for-technology-
uptake-in-africa/
[16] Oloo B, Maredia K, Mbabazi R.
Advancing adoption of genetically
References

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

modified crops as food and feed in Africa:
The case of Kenya. African Journal of
Biotechnology. 2020;(10):694-701.
DOI: 10.5897/AJB2020.17159
[17] ISAAA AfriCenter. 2021
[18] Gebre EK, Maredia K, Guenthner J,
Koch M. Commercialization and
deployment of genetically modified
crops in Africa: Opportunities and
challenges. African Journal of
Biotechnology. 2022. DOI: 10.5897/AJB
[19] ISAAA. Accomplishment Report 2020
[20] ISAAA. Brief 55: Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. 2019
[21] ISAAA. Brief 54: Global Status of
Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. 2018
[22] Zhang J. Overview of global GMO
development. AgroNews Annual
Review. 2020
[23] Ichim MC. The more favorable
attitude of the citizens toward GMOs
supports a new regulatory framework in
the European Union. GM Crops & Food.
2021;(1):18-24. DOI: 10.1080/
21645698.2020.1795525
[24] Turnbull C, Lillemo M,
Hvoslef-Eide TAK. Global regulation of
genetically modified crops amid the
gene edited crop boom—A review.
Frontiers in Plant Science.
2021;:630396. DOI: 10.3389/
fpls.2021.630396
[25] Venter C. Quick overview of GMOs
in South Africa. AgriOrbit. 2020
[26] National Academy of Science.
Chapter: 6 Social and economic effects
of genetically engineered crops. 2016.
In: Genetically Engineered Crops:
Experiences and Prospects. National
Academy Press; 2021
[27] Klümper W, Qaim M. A meta-
analysis of the impacts of genetically
modified. Crops. 2014. DOI: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0111629
[28] Aldemita RR, Hautea RA. Biotech
crop planting resumes high adoption in
2016. GM Crops Food. 2018;(1):1-12.
DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2018.1428166
[29] Akinbo O, Obukosia S, Ouedraogo J,
Sinebo W, Savadogo M, Timpo S, et al.
Commercial release of genetically
modified crops in Africa: Interface
between biosafety regulatory systems
and varietal release systems. Frontiers in
Plant Science. 2021. DOI: 10.3389/
fpls.2021.605937
[30] Gbashi S, Adebo O, Adebiyi JA,
Targuma S, Tebele S, Areo OM, et al.
Food safety, food security and
genetically modified organisms in
Africa: A current perspective.
Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering
Reviews. 2021. DOI: 10.1080/
02648725.2021.1940735
[31] Azadi H, Samiee A, Mahmoudi H,
Jouzi Z, Khachak PR, De Maeyer P, et al.
Genetically modified crops and small-
scale farmers: main opportunities and
challenges. Critical Reviews in
Biotechnology, Early Online. 2015:1-13.
DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2014.990413
[32] EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EU).
A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research
(2001-2010). 2010; https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/
233770770
[33] ISAAA Crop Biotech Update; 2021
[34] Bayer. GMO & Biotechnology
Unlocking Hidden Potential. 2020;
https://www.cropscience.bayer.
com/innovations/seeds-traits/
gmo-biotechnology.
[35] Mbabazi R, Dissanayake HG,
Guenthner J, Maredia K. Perception of
international stakeholders on genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Asian
Biotechnology and Development
Review. 2016;(2):51-57


Crop Biotechnology and Smallholder Farmers in Africa
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101914
[36] Thompson T, Gyatso T. Technology
adoption for improving agricultural
productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. In:
021 Virginia Tech College of Agriculture
and Life Science and Virginia Tech
Foundation. 2020 Available from: https://
globalagriculturalproductivity.org/
technology-adoption-for-improving-
agricultural-productivity-in-sub-
saharan-africa/
[37] Excellence Through Stewardship
(ETS). Guide for Stewardship of
Biotechnology Derived Plant products.
Washington DC: Excellence Through
Stewardship; 2017
[38] Mbabazi R, Koch M, Maredia K,
Guenthner J. Crop biotechnology and
product stewardship. GM Crops &
Food. 2021;(1):106-114. DOI:
10.1080/21645698.2020.1822133
[39] Alhassan SW, Anthony VM,
Rudelsheim P. Implementation of
stewardship in African agricultural
public research and development
institutions. Journal of Agricultural
Biotechnology and Sustainable
Development. 2018;(5):97-103
[40] Morris and Thomson. Genetically
modified crops commercialized in South
Africa. In: Wambugu, Kamanga, editors.
Biotechnology in Africa: Emergence,
Initiatives and Future. Springer; 2014
[41] Raybould A. Improving the Politics
of Biotechnological Innovations in Food
Security and Other Sustainable
Development Goals. Transgenic Res:
Springer; 2021
[42] Waktola A, Tsegaye B. Biotechnology
related policy, management and
negotiation competence: Case Study
from Ethiopia. In: NORAGRIC, Center
for International Environment and
Development Studies. Norwegian
University of Life Sciences, Ås. Noragric
Report No. 14-B. 2003
[43] IITA Blogs. Project to Save Enset—
Ethiopia’s Ancient False Banana from
Deadly Bacterial Wilt Disease Star.
IITA.; 2013
[44] Sida T. Will Ethiopia be a
springboard or a stonewall for GM crops
in Africa? Nature Biotechnology.
2021;(39):147-148. DOI: 10.1038/
s41587-021-00827-5
[45] USDA Foreign Agricultural
Services. Agricultural Biotechnology
Annual Report. Ethiopia. Report
Number: ET2019-0010; 2020
[46] Biosafety News. 2021. Available
from: https://www.biosafetykenya.
go.ke/images/newsletter2021/NBA-
BIOSAFETY-NEWS-5TH-EDITION.pdf
[47] USDA-FAS. Agricultural
Biotechnology Annual; Agricultural
Biotechnology, Country: Kenya; Report
Number: KE2020-0008Annual. 2020.
Available from: https://apps.fas.usda.
gov/newgainapi/api/Report/Download
ReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultu
ral%20Biotechnology%20Annual_
Nairobi_Kenya_10-20-2020 [Accessed:
September 25, 2021]
[48] National Biosafety Agency. NBA
Board Approves Environmental Release
Application for GM Cassava. Press
Release. 2021. Available from: https://
www.biosafetykenya.go.ke/images/
NBA-Board-Approves-application-for-
Genetically-Modified-Cassava-FINAL.
pdf [Accessed: September 25, 2021]
[49] XINHUANET News. Scientists Bank
on GM Crop to Lift Cassava Industry in
East Africa. 2021. Available from: http://
www.xinhuanet.com/english/
africa/2021-07/06/c_1310044498.htm
[Accessed: September 25, 2021]
[50] Maina J. Bad press and wild claims
have unfairly slowed GM crops on the
continent, African Scientists say.
Alliance for Science (cornell.edu). 2021
[51] Silas DO, Maredia K, Kedisso EG,
Guenther J and Jeremy O. Value-chain of

Genetically Modified Plants and Beyond

cotton industry in Kenya with focus on
product stewardship for timely
provision of certified quality seeds to
farmers. (In preparation).
[52] Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R,
Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, et al.
Long term toxicity of a Roundup
herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant
genetically modified maize. Food and
Chemical Toxicology. 2012;:4221-4231
[53] USDA. Agricultural biotechnology.
Nigeria approves the commercial release
of Bt. Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpea.
2019:1-13
[54] Adenle AA. Stakeholders’
perceptions of GM technology in West
Africa: Assessing the responses of
policymakers and scientists in Ghana
and Nigeria. The Journal of Agriculture
and Environmental Ethics. 2014. DOI:
10.1007/s10806-013-9462-y
[55] Sudan Fourth National Report under
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 2019
[56] Ali AM. Biosafety and biosecurity in
countries with low resources—Sudan as
an example biosafety. 2013, 2013;:1.
DOI: 10.4172/2167-0331.1000105
[57] Gazette No. 1091: Miscellaneous
Amendments Law—(Unification of
Environment Councils) of 2020—
Legislation No.3 of 2020
[58] Naglaa AA. The story behind Bt
cotton: Where does Sudan stand. GM
Crops & Food. 2014;(4):241-243. DOI:
10.1080/21645698.2014.997119
[59] Ali AM. et al. Submission of
Application to the National Biosafety
Council, Ministry of Environment, for
the Approval of the release into the
Environment of a Bt Cotton Variety
Seeni, 2012
[60] Ali AM., National Variety Release
Committee Meeting, A Proposal for the
Release of an Open Pollinated Bt Cotton
(G. hirsutum) Variety for Production in
the Sudan, 2015
[61] Ecuru J, Naluyima H. Biotechnology
developments in Uganda and associated
challenges. African Crop Science
Journal. 2010;(3):133-139
[62] Agaba J. GM Crops: Kenya and
Nigeria Progress as Uganda Falters.
2021; https://allianceforscience.cornell.
edu/blog/2021/08/gm-crops-kenya-
and-nigeria-progress-as-uganda-falters/
[63] Muheebwa H. Uganda Parliament
Passes Bill To Promote Use Of
Genetically Modified Materials, Biotech.
For Intellectual Property Watch 2.
International IP Policy News. 2017.
Available from: https://www.ip-watch.
org/2017/11/03/uganda-parliament-
passes-bill-promote-use-genetically-
modified-materials-biotech/
[64] Zawedde BM, Kwehangana M,
Oloka HK. Readiness for environmental
release of genetically engineered (GE)
plants in Uganda. Frontiers in
Bioengineering and Biotechnology.
2018;:152. DOI: 10.3389/
fbioe.2018.00152
[65] Afedraru L. Uganda’s scientists
strive to use biotechnology to solve
agricultural, health and environmental
challenges. Genetic Literacy Project.
2018 https://geneticliteracyproject.
org/2018/05/31/ugandas-scientists-
strive-to-use-biotechnology-to-solve-
agricultural-health-and-environmental-
challenges/
[66] Muhumuza JR. Uganda’s Biotech
Research: More Than Just Untapped
Potential 2021; https://
allianceforscience.cornell.edu/
blog/2021/03/ugandas-biotech-
research-more-than-just-untapped-
potential/