Today, many African countries face severe hunger problems. One-third of Africans are undernourished, and per capita food production is falling. This situation demands immediate attention. As part of Bread for the World Institute's commitment to eliminating hunger and seeking justice for all people, which arises from our Christian faith, we have engaged in an evaluation of whether crop biotechnology could help reduce hunger in Africa. The year-long process involved extensive research review, stakeholder consultation and a conference attended by more than 100 people representing government agencies, non-governmental organi-zations, churches, private industry, international agencies, universities and experts from several African coun-tries. The statement that follows represents our best thinking to date on a complex, controversial and dynam-ic issue. As the debate continues and circumstances change, Bread for the World Institute will review our policy in light of what we continue to learn.

Background

Most people in sub-Saharan Africa live in rural areas, and agriculture is central to the economy; it pro-vides food, employment and income to more than two-thirds of Africa's people. Thus, one of the most effec-tive ways to reduce hunger in Africa is to improve agricultural productivity. This improvement would raise both farm and non-farm incomes, expand food supplies, and boost overall food access and food security. Past experience in many African countries - in addition to the lessons learned from Asia's Green Revolution -confirms that substantial progress can be made in agriculture and rural development by investing in appro-priate agricultural technologies and institutions, and establishing apt policies that improve the efficiency and sustainable use of available resources, empower women and improve their access to productive resources, and reduce regional income disparities.

Agricultural biotechnology – a term which represents a continuum of different techniques, ranging from non-controversial tissue culture to controversial genetic engineering – potentially can increase agricultural yields; reduce yield losses from insects, diseases and drought; and enhance the nutritive value of crops crucial to poor people's health. But there is genuine concern expressed by many people about long-term negative health and environmental effects, such as those now debated in developed countries. African countries that begin to use crop biotechnology could lose exports to European consumers who broadly oppose biotechnology. In addition, because affluent farmers are more likely than others to acquire and use this technology, it might increase income inequality in rural areas.

The failure of the current discussion to resolve issues raised for and against crop biotechnology, the vast resources spent by multinational corporations lobbying and pushing the technology, and the stand-off between the United States and European Union on this issue have increased suspicion and frustration, hin-dering a balanced debate and objective decision making on whether the technology is useful. Moreover, the U.S. government increasingly is seen to favor biotechnology and to represent the interests of the multina-tional corporations involved. If the U.S. government were instead seeking to strengthen the regulation of biotechnology, public confidence in its use, in the U.S. and abroad, would increase.

Currently, biotechnology research and development is hardly targeted toward Africa or its poor people. In 2001, only 0.2 percent of the 130 million acres of land planted worldwide with genetically modified (GM) crops was in Africa. In addition, none of the more than 50 GM crop products released in developed coun-tries was designed to address Africa's agricultural constraints. Instead, private industry essentially controls the technology, a trend supported by intellectual property rights that favor multinational corporations. This con-trol likely will restrict sharing and access of the technology by national, regional and international public research institutes that work largely on agricultural problems facing poor people. Hence, the ability of biotech-nology to reduce hunger in Africa is severely limited. E

Because Africa has diverse cultures, economies, ecologies and politics, conclusions about the risks and ben-efits of biotechnology likely will differ from country to country. African views may differ from views expressed in developed countries, especially as people in each country weigh their own needs and values against perceived costs and risks. As African people debate whether agricultural biotechnology is appropriate for them, all stake- holders - including smallholder African farmers and consumers - should be included. Ultimately, the final decision on whether to use the technology must be made, and the responsibility borne, by Africans.

Guiding Principles

Bread for the World Institute supports Africa's right to choose whether to pursue the use of crop biotechnology. Therefore, we support an increase in funding to build Africa's capacity to carry out unbiased evalua-tions of biotechnology's benefits and risks, establish appropriate biosafety policies and institutions and par-ticipate in related international negotiations.

We support the restructuring of the current intellectual property rights system to protect indigenous resources and ensure access to the technology and distribution of its benefits to all, including smallholder African farmers.

Any potential benefits of crop biotechnology must be weighed against potential risks and considered within a broader African agricultural and economic development framework, using benchmarks related to ending hunger and helping African countries achieve sustainable and equitable development.

Although biotechnology can play a role in enhancing agricultural productivity and food security, by itself it cannot solve the hunger problem in Africa. Agricultural improvements can also be made through organic farming, integrated pest management and conventional breeding. Agricultural development efforts must also include investments in agricultural extension, credit, marketing, infrastructure and trade.

Decisions about agricultural technologies, institutions and policies should be made by African govern-ments with the full participation of civil society (including smallholder farmers and consumers) and without undue external influence from companies, governments, or advocacy groups.

Finally, we urge the United States and other industrialized countries to increase support for efforts to reduce hunger in Africa. This will include increases in effective poverty-focused development assistance, changes in the agriculture and agricultural trade policies of the industrialized countries and more support for peacemaking in Africa. We urge development assistance agencies and African governments to adopt strategies that boost Africa's agriculture and rural development; widen access to nutritious food, water, healthcare and education; and improve the living standards of all Africans, especially those who are prone to hunger.

-------------------------
Approved by the Bread for the World Institute Board of Directors
November 18, 2002
-------------------------

Bread for the World is a U.S. Christian citizens' movement against hunger. Its nationwide grassroots membership of concerned indi-viduals and churches mobilizes a quarter of a million letters to the U.S. Congress each year on issues that are important to hungry people. Bread for the World has a long-term commitment to help-ing reverse the increase of hunger in Africa. Bread for the World Institute seeks justice for hungry people by engaging in research and education on policies related to hunger and poverty.

Bread for the World
50 F Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 639-9400 o Fax (202) 639-9401
www.bread.org