Re: The New Colonialist Food Economy – The Context Some Africa Seed Sovereignty Campaigners Ignore

I recently read an article titled; “The new colonialist food economy; how Bill Gates and agribusiness giants are throttling small farmers in Africa and the Global South” published on the portal of US-based magazine, The Nation, and subsequently on some African media platforms like myjoyonline.com. “Seeding disaster” was the headline when the article was published in the printed copy of the magazine.

Shrouded in the so-called Africa seed sovereignty campaign, the article in summary claims the development of improved seeds in Africa is a grand attempt by the Western world to hijack Africa’s food systems. Just as the passage of Plant Variety Protection legislations by parliaments in Africa, as we have seen in Ghana. The article was the product of a recent visit to Ghana by the author who is an American journalist.

But when I read the article, I felt the same way that I have felt reading a number of other African agriculture-related articles by Westerners who appear not to fully understand what’s happening on our continent. The article lacked the appropriate context of the realities African people find themselves in when you talk about food security and agribusinesses. Of course, the author sprinkled quotes of Africans across the article, some of which are liaised with misrepresentations, that I will touch on later. But two things were either deliberately or inadvertently omitted, as is the case with several other such articles I have read. The first is that it is not only foreign companies that are developing improved seeds in Africa. Some African plant breeders and homegrown agribusinesses are doing that too. And secondly, the article glossed over the precarious hunger situation in Africa.

So first, let me put the African food security situation in the appropriate context. Africa is the hungriest continent in the world and the situation deserves peculiar attention. It’s embarrassing to admit that as an African agriculturalist, but that is the hard truth. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 report put together by the Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), World Food Program, World Health Organization, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, couldn’t have summed it up any better.

“One in five people in Africa (20.2 percent of the population) was facing hunger in 2021, compared to 9.1 percent in Asia, 8.6 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean, 5.8 percent in Oceania, and less than 2.5 percent in Northern America and Europe. Africa is also the region where the proportion of the population affected by hunger has increased the most,” the report said. Whilst 20 in every 100 people you meet in Africa faces hunger, in North America and Europe, the number is 2.5.

These are not just figures. I meet these people every day. From the subsistence farms in Damongo – Ghana, to the malls in Nairobi – Kenya, to the coast of Mozambique. People are not getting 3 square meals a day, and the result is that they are dying of malnutrition, including children. This is happening everywhere in the world but the magnitude at which it is happening in Africa is nothing compared to the rest of the world.

It shouldn’t matter whether you are African or not. It shouldn’t matter whether you are a philanthropist seeking to throw your money around, an agribusiness CEO seeking profit, or a government official in the West who just wants to look good. We need all hands on deck to do something about this troubling hunger situation in Africa. And, Asia.

We Africans must also be ready to do something about the situation. Like incite local ingenuity and encourage homebred hunger-fighting initiatives, hold our leaders to account, and checkmate foreigners who come in to help. But this posturing that creates the impression that Africans working with foreigners to deal with food security challenges have no minds of their own to read between what is right or wrong for us, is nothing but insulting.

The Plant Variety Protection Act controversy

Now to rebuff some of the specific claims in the article. I have a friend called Dr. Amos Rutherford Azinu. He is the founder of the Legacy Crop Improvement Center (LCIC), a private seed business firm located in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Early this year, his company introduced to the Ghanaian market a new yellow hybrid corn under the trade name LEGACY 26. It’s unique because in a country where corn farms yield an average of 3 tonnes per hectare, Legacy 26 yields 8 tonnes per hectare. This high level of productivity didn’t come easy. It is the result of many years of breeding work and millions of investments.

Do you genuinely think it is out of place that Ghana’s Parliament in 2020 passed the Plant Variety Protection Act to ensure unscrupulous people don’t steal LCIC’s intellectual property? Do you genuinely think if another plant breeder picks Legacy 26, improves upon it, and comes up with a variety that yields 16 tonnes per hectare, it will be out of place for LCIC to earn royalties from the newest variety? That will be the right thing to do and that’s what this law seeks to ensure. Not to criminalize the sharing of seeds by farmers.

Contrary to what the author of the article claims, this law is not part of any “new generation of agricultural reforms” that seeks to “institute legal and financial penalties throughout the African Union for farmers who fail to adopt foreign-engineered seeds protected by patents, including genetically modified versions of native seeds.” This claim is a slap in the face of small business seed companies in Ghana like LCIC, which are struggling every day to improve the country’s food security. You are thrashing their work. And you are creating an impression that what they do, doesn’t matter.

I had the honor of sitting at the front row seat in the press gallery of Ghana’s parliament as the house debated this law whilst serving as parliamentary correspondent for Joy FM and Joy News TV. The lawmakers who debated and approved this law were very categorical that it does not criminalize the sharing of seeds by farmers. In fact, Ghana’s former Attorney General Gloria Akuffo in a memo to parliament stated that categorically. She said; “The plant breeders right system permits the farmer to save and replant seed and provides them with the right to use protected varieties as a source of further research and breeding activities.” So, why is this still an issue many years later? I know why. Some conspiracy theorists don’t want the false claim to go away.

Below is what convinced me the most that the author is simply on a fear-mongering campaign. This is actually what Section 60 of the Plant Variety Protection Act says: “A person who wilfully (a) offers for sale, sells or markets the propagating material of a variety protected in Ghana; (b) markets propagating material of a variety protected in Ghana without the registered variety denomination; or (c) uses the registered variety denomination of a variety protected in Ghana for another variety of the same plant species or closely related species likely to cause confusion commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine… or a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.”

The law clearly targets unscrupulous marketers and unscrupulous seed companies that counterfeit and repackage improved seeds developed by genuine seed companies, not farmers. For fear-mongering sake, the author quotes someone who in reading the act replaces “a person” with “a farmer who willfully commits an offense.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The authors writes; ‘Was it possible, the farmers asked, that Ghanaian police could be empowered to imprison cowpea farmers for trading and refining “unregulated” native seed stocks?’ The answer is no. The Attorney General’s office has said so. And the author knows it.

The author says; “the tightening of intellectual property laws on farms throughout the African Union would represent a major victory for the global economic forces.” No. It will rather be a victory for local companies like LCIC so they can help develop better seeds for farmers. If global seed companies also end up benefiting, why not? But more importantly, the law doesn’t tighten intellectual property on African farms. It seeks to deter people from unfairly stealing the intellectual property of companies like LCIC.

In the absence of any protection, how would companies like LCIC grow to become global conglomerates like Bayer and Syngenta, for the benefit of African economies? LCIC is a member of the National Seed Trade Association of Ghana, an association of seed companies that has hundreds of members doing similarly great work to improve seeds in Ghana. The claim by the author that protecting the seed businesses in Ghana is a “punitive model of food cultivation that aims to supplant farmer traditions and practices that have endured on the continent for millennia,” doesn’t add up. These Ghanaian seed companies are improving local seeds for the benefit of Ghanaian farmers.

Simplifying the argument

Let me simplify the analogy being advocated by activists fighting Plant Variety Protection laws in Africa. Bottled water companies are making millions in sales all over the world. Can I argue that bottled water companies have no right to patent their products because the source water is from rivers and lakes which are God-given? If I want to go drink directly from the river, I will drink that free of charge. But if someone purifies it and bottles it for me, that person deserves to be paid for their investment. We don’t have a problem when that is done with bottled water and even oxygen tanks in the USA and Africa. But when African businesses seek to protect their improved seed, that raises eyebrows. Farmers can continue using their own seeds just as people who have the time can go fetch water directly from rivers and purify to drink. But just like people who prefer bottled water, farmers who want improved seeds from seed companies like LCIC must pay for it. And they are not even complaining because they see the returns on their investments.   

Do these seed sovereignty campaigners really wish Africa well?

Another key point worth re-stating is that Legacy 26 yields almost 3 times better than the average maize seed varieties in Ghana. In fact, there are maize varieties in Ghana that yield as low as 1 tonne per hectare, which means Legacy 26 yields 8 times better than that. Is the author saying it is wrong for firms like LCIC to offer these improved seeds to Ghanaian farmers? Is the author insisting farmers should only grow the varieties that yield 80% less? Does the author wish Ghanaian farmers well, and does the author care about Africa feeding itself?

The GMO controversy

Let me address the issue of GMOs in Africa by first pointing out that foreign involvement in Africa is not unique to the agricultural space. Every aspect of life in Africa, just as in other parts of the world, is awash with foreign involvement. There are foreign cars on our roads, foreign companies mining our gold, hospitals use foreign reagents and equipment, and almost all our revolutionary technologies like mobile phones and computers are foreign-made. In fact, there are even foreign coffin makers in Ghana, besides the lavish foreign coffins we import into the country.

Do we want that changed in Africa? Off course. Just as America is fighting the lost battle to replace all the Chinese and Mexican goods on the market with “Made in America” products. I call it a lost battle because we live in a globalized world where international trade is the norm and not the exception.

So yes, USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, Bayer, and other such institutions are heavily involved in Africa’s GMO space. Just as some are involved in initiatives to spread life-saving vaccines like COVID-19 vaccines across the continent. But there are Ghanaian scientists involved too like Dr. Jerry Nboyine of the Ghana government-funded Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), who currently leads the genetically modified cowpea project. He submitted the request for environmental release approval of Ghana’s first GMO – the GM cowpea, to the country’s National Biosafety Authority and got it. If it ever becomes necessary to patent the GM cowpea variety, SARI and by extension the Ghana government will be the intellectual property owner. So, the impression being created that GMOs in Africa signal a hostile takeover of the continent’s seed sector by foreign interests is not backed by any evidence.

Let me round up on the GM cowpea bit with the point the author makes that Nigerian farmers claim “the taste of the GM cowpea is not as nice, and that it takes longer to boil and doesn’t stick together.” I respect the experiences of the farmers whose stories the author recounts. But I have also spoken to farmers in Nigeria and Ghana who say the only difference between the GM cowpea and conventional seeds is the reduced pest damage they see on the field, and not else. They are glad they don’t have to suffer pesticide poisoning, and they are glad they will be making savings by reducing the use of environmentally polluting pesticides.

Final words

The author appears to shake the flag of agroecology as a possibly better choice for Africa than hybrids and GMOs. I have no problem with that. But what is wrong with agroecology being pursued, hand in hand with the use of hybrid seeds and GMOs? So farmers choose what works for them. Why do activists preach a limitation of the choices for farmers and tell them, go agroecology but don’t use GMOs and hybrids? Won’t allowing broad choices rather increase the chance of the farmer getting the best out of their toil? Why must one technological innovation necessarily be blocked in favor of the other? Why does a company developing GMO or hybrid have to be torn down before agroecological practices can thrive? Let’s not do that to our African farmers. They will be the worse for it.

The author makes the argument that “Hybrid and GMO seeds are engineered to grow with optimal water and large quantities of synthetic fertilizer, which small-scale farmers don’t have and can’t afford.” What stops us from working to ensure these associated support schemes are made available to them so that instead of the African farmer making 3 tonnes of corn per hectare, he or she is able to make 22 tonnes per hectare like the farmer in Ohio? Improving productivity will not solve all the world’s food insecurity problems but it will go a very long way to reduce the hunger burden, especially in places like Africa.

It was nice to see the author write about how “Mesoamerican farmers bred the first maize cobs from a wild grass that grew thick in the river valleys of central Mexico,” thousands of years ago. That is the evidence that in this ever-changing world, nothing remains the same. If activists then had resisted the improvement of those wild grasses, we wouldn’t have had maize as we have it today. Someone needs to improve upon the crops we have. And it is an ongoing process. Farmers did it then and are doing it today. There is nothing wrong with plant breeders, and even agribusinesses like LCIC, also joining the fray and improving crops.

The author calls out institutions like the Alliance for Science, Africa Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), and Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) for mediating the involvement of foreigners in Africa’s agriculture. I have had the honor of working with these institutions, and so I think I have earned the status to pass my own judgment on their work. The African men and women who lead these institutions are not irresponsible leaders. The impression that they have made these institutions conveyor belts pushing foreign interests whilst throwing the future of African farmers under the bus doesn’t represent the true picture of the work they do. I have seen firsthand these institutions put crop-improving technologies and other tools in the hands of farmers, which have changed the lives of whole farming communities for the better.

Should the work of these institutions be scrutinized? Certainly yes. Can their operational practices be improved upon? Absolutely. But to create the impression that the work they do mainly aims at selling Africa to the West under a new form of colonialism, doesn’t represent the true picture.

End.

The author Joseph Opoku Gakpo is a Ghanaian science, environment, agriculture, and rural development journalist. He is also a doctoral researcher at the Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA.

African scientists urge governments to invest in appropriate regulatory mechanisms for biotech products

African scientists are urging governments across the continent to invest in appropriate regulatory structures and monitoring mechanisms for crops and animals produced using biotechnology. They want to see more investments in laboratories that can help appropriately detect and trace products of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology and new genomic techniques like gene editing. They say this is necessary to ensure appropriate oversight of the products so the full potential of agricultural biotechnology can be explored on the African continent.

“Two things. Governments in Africa need to empower the existing institutions. In Ghana, we have the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, and Food and Drugs Authority. So, it’s either government should empower and equip them to take up such detection. Or our governments can set up new laboratories so we can work together on this,” said Dr. Francis Djankpa, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Cape Coast.

In 2022, Ghana approved its first GMO crop, Bt cowpea, which has inherent resistance to pest attacks, with some others in the pipeline. Dr. Djankpa who serves on the technical committee of the NBA says the public has no reason to be apprehensive about GMOs, but structures need to be in place to appropriately monitor their use. “There shouldn’t be any fear about GMOs. For the variety that has been approved, we requested for comprehensive documents and information from the applicants, and they brought it. We satisfied ourselves before approving. So, there is no fear at all,” he said.

He was speaking in an interview at the International Conference on GMOs and New Genomic Techniques in Berlin, Germany. The conference provided an opportunity for scientists and regulators to learn about recent developments in the fields of detection and identification of GMOs and new genomic techniques. Organized by the German government and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, it sought to promote broad technical and scientific exchange between scientists worldwide on the status and challenges for traceability, detection, and identification of GMOs and products of new genomic techniques.

Africa needs to catch up

In Africa, genetically modified crops are grown commercially in about 6 countries out of the continent’s 54 countries. They are Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia, Malawi, Sudan, and Eswatini. Field trials are ongoing in 11 other countries as part of approval processes. Four African countries currently have various genome-edited crop projects in the works. Work on genome-edited banana, maize, yam, cassava, and wheat is being done in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, and Egypt. Scientists say appropriate methods of detecting and tracing these crops are good for stewardship so the spread of the crops can be properly accounted for. “Looking at the advancement made in other parts of the world, it looks like we are very late in Africa. So, I think we have to wake up,” Dr. Djankpa observed.

Josephine Amedu who is a Principal Biosafety Officer at Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency wants to see Africa expand on the capacity it has in the area of detection and traceability of biotechnology products. “Africa would have to build its capacity not only in terms of human capacity but also appropriate tools to be able to regulate these new genomic techniques… and especially indigenous GMOs,” she said.

She called for a more comprehensive harmonization of regulatory efforts on the African continent in the handling of biotechnology products. “Some harmonization has been done, especially in Europe and Southern Africa… These are all very beautiful initiatives. In West Africa, there is a platform whereby the regulations within the region are being harmonized. We have been able to have our heads of state sit down, and they are in the process of actually adopting a single regulation… We need to work more on that,” Ms. Amedu observed during a final panel session to close the conference.  

Prof. Stephen Ghogomu of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Buea in Cameroun agrees there is a need for enhanced expertise in biotechnology supervision on the continent, which African governments should take seriously.

“We will need the expertise back home to be able to carry out the work on monitoring and detection. We will also need financing because the reagents are not affordable. It is possible for us to seek out research grants to carry out these diagnoses using new technologies in collaboration with other laboratories which are well planted abroad… But we need local resources,” he said.

“Definitely, governments should support these processes. We cannot keep on looking only for support from outside,” he added.

By Joseph Opoku Gakpo / Berlin – Germany

Gates Ag One Supports Project Developing Africa’s Self-fertilising Crops with $35m

The Bill & Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations (Gates Ag One) has announced a $35 million support for a Cambridge University-led project working to develop self-fertilizing crops for African farmers. The grant will support the Engineering Nitrogen Symbiosis for Africa (ENSA) research programme over the next five years. The research consortium focuses on improving nutrient uptake by food plants to reduce the need for fertilizer across some of the world’s most degraded land.

“The pioneering work of ENSA is fundamental to level the playing field for smallholder farmers in Africa, leveraging the latest crop technology to ensure all communities have the chance to thrive,” said Joe Cornelius, CEO of Gates Ag One, in a statement announcing the funding. “Breakthrough advances in crop science and innovation mean intractable challenges like nutrient uptake and soil health need not hold back agricultural development. We’re delighted that Gates Ag One can support ENSA to continue its work to meet the needs of smallholder farmers,” he added.

Joe Cornelius, CEO of Gates Ag One

As much as 65% of productive land in Africa is considered degraded, according to the United Nations, which means crop yields are only around a third of the global average. Fertiliser is often a costly and inaccessible resource for many smallholder farmers in Africa, which accounts for just 4% of global fertilizer consumption. Africa relies heavily on fertiliser imports from Russia, and the ongoing war in Ukraine has driven up prices by up to 150%.

Developing crops with a greater ability to take in nutrients through natural processes would therefore automatically increase yields without the need for fertilizer. ENSA scientists are breeding plants to maximize the naturally occurring processes in which fungi and bacteria help crops to convert more nutrients from the soil. ENSA is the latest research project to receive funding from Gates Ag One, which recently announced a grant for the Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE) project, of which the UK-based Cambridge University is a collaborator.

A not-for-profit subsidiary of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates Ag One was created to leverage global crop science to meet the needs of smallholder farmers in Africa and South Asia. It focuses on accelerating research that enhances the biological processes of six priority food crops: cassava, cowpea, maize, rice, sorghum, and soybean. The organisation works to accelerate breakthrough agricultural research to meet the urgent and neglected needs of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Out of the conviction that all lives have equal value, Gates Ag One serves the interests of smallholder farmers, who are most exposed to climate shocks yet lack the access that others have to the latest agricultural innovations. Gates Ag One works to level the playing field and empower smallholder farmers to transform their agricultural productivity, nutrition security, and climate resilience.

ENSA’s work optimizes the interactions between crops and microorganisms to make better use of nutrients already present in the air and the soil, including nitrogen and phosphorus. At present, only legumes like beans and peas can naturally convert nitrogen from the soil through bacteria known as rhizobia. Replicating this ability in other crops, such as cereals, would sustainably increase the yields of critical staple foods.

“African agriculture is at an inflection point, with vastly increasing demand at a time when supply is at risk, especially due to a changing climate,” said Giles Oldroyd, Director of the Crop Science Centre, another partner on the project. “The outcomes of this work have the potential to see gains as great as those from the Green Revolution, but without relying on costly and polluting inorganic fertilizers. Increasing production of crops sustainably in smallholder farming systems, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, directly addresses some of the worst poverty on the planet,” he added.

By Joseph Opoku Gakpo

World Food Day: Revisiting the GMO conversation

Yesterday the 16^th of October 2022 was World Food Day. The day is celebrated annually under the auspices of the United Nations to raise awareness about poverty, hunger, and the need to make adequate food available to all. As we mark the day, I want to talk about what is probably the most significant food security-related development Ghana has witnessed since we celebrated the last World Food Day in October 2021. It has to do with genetically modified (GM) foods which are popularly known as GMOs.

In June 2022, Ghana approved its first genetically modified crop for environmental release. The approval by the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) means the genetically modified pod borer resistant (PBR) cowpea or beans, can now be released from confined research fields where they have been under trial for several years now. The NBA – an entity set up by an act of Parliament under the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation – has thus now given the GM cowpea the green light to go through the processes that all non-GM seed varieties go through at the Ministry for Food and Agriculture, and then it can be made commercially available to farmers. It’s taken scientists at the Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research almost 10 years to get approval from the NBA, making it a historic win for the institution.

A 12-page decision document dated 30^th June 2022 and published on the website of the Biosafety Clearing House says “the board of the NBA has determined that the genetically modified plant does not present an altered environmental risk or a food or feed safety concern when compared to conventional cowpea varieties in Ghana. The board has therefore approved the environmental release and placing on the market of the cowpea which has been genetically modified for resistance to maruca pod borer for a ten (10) year period, renewable.”

Nigerian farmers show of their genetically modified cowpea field

Important revelations

The NBA in the decision document says the Bt gene used in creating the GM cowpea has a history of safe use in crops like maize in other parts of the world, including South Africa, the USA, and Europe. The authority says the genetic modification of the cowpea did not have unintended or unexpected effects on the plant’s growth habits. There were also no indications that the GM cowpea will be more invasive or persistent in the environment, or have altered susceptibility to pests and diseases compared to the conventional cowpea. Except for the intended resistance to maruca pod borer, the GM cowpea is equivalent to conventional cowpea. The authority says the variety is unlikely to be toxic or allergenic to mammals, and it does not identify any new hazards associated with it.

The NBA also says its assessment indicated there is no increased weediness or invasiveness potential compared to conventional cowpea varieties, and the potential risk of gene flow from the cowpea to wild relatives is negligible. It will not result in altered impacts on non-target organisms, including humans, and will not spread into or persist in unmanaged environments. The authority also says the GM cowpea does not pose an increased risk to interacting non-target organisms, and the potential impact on biodiversity is equivalent to that of conventional cowpea varieties. The nutritional composition of the GM cowpea is substantially equivalent to that of conventional cowpea varieties. One other important revelation in the NBA approval document is that the genetically modified PBR cowpea is not a hybrid. Just like other open-pollinated varieties, farmers can save the GM cowpea seeds for planting the following season. ry.

What are GMOs?

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is the common terminology that is used to describe crops and animals that have been created through genetic engineering procedures. For ages, plant breeders seeking to improve upon crops cross them on the field to move the desired traits to the crop of interest, usually within the same species. Traits like pest resistance, drought tolerance, improved nutritional values, and better yields, are common characteristics plant breeders work with.

With GMOs, the gene or DNA responsible for the desired trait gets moved in the laboratory. Subsequent generations of the new seeds that get planted on the field inherit the newly introduced traits. In South Africa, more than 85% of all corn, and 90% of all soybean grown and consumed are GMOs. In the USA, more than 90% of both crops grown and consumed are GMOs. As at 2019, GMOs were grown in 29 different countries across the world. To date, there has been no evidence that the consumption of GMOs has caused any adverse health effects in human and animal consumers anywhere in the world.

What does the GM cowpea do?

Cowpea, popularly called beans is a popular, protein-rich crop that is consumed by millions in Ghana and the rest of Africa. But the crop is vulnerable to the maruca pod borer pests. To control the pest, farmers typically spray their fields with pesticides between 8 and 12 times in the 8 to 12-week life cycle of the crop. The GM cowpea, which includes a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium known as Bt, is resistant to the pest. Confined field trials have shown that if farmers grow GM cowpea, they can reduce their spray regimen from at least 8 to just twice per season, while gaining a five-fold increase in yield. Following the approval by the NBA, CSIR scientists are rolling out multilocational trials during which farmers will grow the GM cowpea in their own fields. The scientists will collect data on its performance, which will then be submitted to the Varietal Release Committee (VRC) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for varietal release approval, before it can be made commercially available to farmers.

Conclusion

This is a very historic approval that puts Ghana in the league of countries like Nigeria, South Africa, the United States of America, Brazil, and more than 25 other countries where GMOs are grown. In August, a peer-reviewed study published by Dr. Graham Brookes of UK-based PG Economics revealed that between 1996 and 2020, the net global income farmers earned from adopting GM crops hit US$225 billion. GM technology used in maize increased yields by an average of 17.7 percent, relative to conventional production systems. GM technology also helped farmers reduce the environmental footprint associated with their crop protection practices by over 17%. It additionally helped avoid the destruction of more than 23 million hectares of farm fields to meet current global crop production levels. In other words, if GM technology had not been introduced, more than 23 million hectares of farm fields would have been destroyed to meet current global production levels of maize, soybeans, cotton, canola, and other crops with GM counterparts.

The theme for this year’s World Food Day is “leave no one behind.” It emphasizes the need to build a sustainable world where everyone, everywhere has regular access to enough nutritious food. We wait to see what role GMO technology can play in helping create that sustainable food supply system in Ghana.

Authored by Joseph Opoku Gakpo. Joseph is a doctoral student at the Department of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA. He is also a Fellow at the university’s Genetic Engineering and Society Center.  

Farmers earned $18.8 billion in additional benefits from growing GM crops in 2020 – New Study

Farmers across the globe earned an estimated $18.8 billion in additional benefits from growing genetically modified (GM) crops in 2020, a new study published by PG Economics UK has revealed.

The figure is almost equal to the direct gains made by farmers in 2018 from growing GM crops. In that year, the direct global farm income benefit from GM crops was estimated to be $18.95 billion. According to the study by Dr. Graham Brookes, between 1996 and 2020, the net global farm income benefit from growing GM crops was $261.3 billion, up from a 2018 figure of $225 billion.

The study which is also published in the GM Crops and Food Journal conducted an analysis of existing farm-level impact data on GM crops, contained in previously published peer-reviewed studies and other research papers. Economic benefits to farmers were broadly assessed by looking at gross farmer income and variable costs of production. The author explains he also conducted his own specific impact analysis of some GM trait-crop combinations in some of the countries where there was limited published research.

Cumulatively, since 1996, genetically modified insect resistance technology has added $67.8 billion to the income of global maize farmers. There have also been substantial gains in the cotton sector through a combination of higher yields and lower costs. From 1996 to 2020, cotton farm income levels in GM adopting countries amounted to $73.11 billion. The GM herbicide tolerant technology in soybeans boosted farm incomes by an additional $74.65 billion over the same duration.

Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics

Dr. Brookes says crop biotechnology continues to make a significant contribution to global agricultural production, as GM crops have increased food, feed, and fibre production by nearly 1 billion tonnes between 1996 and 2020. Over the duration, the GM technology has been responsible for the additional global production of 330 million tonnes of soybeans, 595 million tonnes of maize, 37 million tonnes of cotton lint, 15.8 million tonnes of canola and 1.9 million tonnes of sugar beet. 

The paper says GM crop technology continues to make an important contribution to reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture and securing global food supplies in a sustainable way. GMOs reduced carbon emissions by 39.1 billion kilograms, arising from reduced fuel use of 14.7 billion litres. The figure is equivalent to removing 25.9 million cars from the roads. The study says GM technology has also helped farmers who grow these crops to reduce the environmental footprint associated with their crop protection practices by over 17%. From 1996 to 2020, crop biotechnology reduced the application of crop protection products by 748.6 million kilograms. This represents 7.2 percent less usage of chemicals in countries where insect resistant GM crops are grown.

Crop biotechnology has also significantly reduced agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions by helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil. According to the paper, had GM crops not been grown in 2020, an additional 23.6 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere. This is equivalent to putting an additional 15.6 million cars on the roads.

The study additionally reveals GM crop technology has increased yields through improved control of pests and weeds. For example, between 1996 and 2020, insect resistant GM technology used in maize increased yields by an average of 17.7 percent, relative to conventional production systems. The technology also caused an average of 14.5 percent increase in cotton yields over the duration.

The application of crop biotechnology also reduced pressure to bring new land into agriculture. For example, if crop biotechnology had not been available to farmers in 2020, maintaining global production levels that year would have required the planting of an additional 11.6 million hectares (ha) of soybeans, 8.5 million ha of maize, 2.8 million ha of cotton and 0.5 million ha of canola.

In a statement copied to Alliance for Science, Dr. Brookes observed that crop biotechnology delivers an excellent return on investment for the farmers using the technology. Over the 1996-2020 period, farmers in developing countries received $5.22 as extra income for each extra dollar invested in GM crop seeds, whereas farmers in developed countries received $3 as extra income for each extra dollar invested in GM crop seeds, he explained.

GMOs versus gene-edited products: The key differences you should know of

In agricultural production, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are crops and animals which have had their genetic materials improved upon through genetic engineering techniques. Genetic engineering techniques are laboratory procedures that allow scientists to introduce genes into an organism from the same or different species. For example, a popular GMO is Bt maize. This maize has a gene introduced into it from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, resulting in maize that is resistant to specific insect pests. However, since the basic building blocks of all living things are the same regardless of whether they are plants, animals, or micro-organisms, such gene transfer is possible and results in products that have been consumed for decades.

In the USA, at least 90% of all maize, cotton, and soyabeans are GMOs. In South Africa, 85% of all maize, 95% of all soyabeans, and 100% of all cotton grown there are GMOs. Genetically modified organisms are currently grown in at least 29 countries worldwide including Bangladesh, Sudan, Nigeria, Brazil, China, and India. Despite strict GM regulations in Europe, GM maize is grown in Spain and Portugal. Ghana recently approved the growing of GM cowpea (beans), which is resistant to an insect pest called Maruca, and farmers will in the next few years be able to grow it. Genetically modified organisms have mainly been controversial because they result from the introduction of genes from same or non–related living organisms. Those who rally against the technology question why people should be eating maize that has genes of bacteria in it, although scientific evidence says that should not be a problem since all living things have the same basic building blocks.

About a decade ago, a more advanced form of genetic engineering technology called gene-editing or genome-editing was discovered. This technology allows scientists to break, insert or delete DNA strands of an organism, as a way of improving upon it to create beneficial traits. There are several versions of this technology, including one that uses CRISPR-associated protein-based systems. This technique enables precise alterations to specific regions of the genome, in a way that you could avoid using external genes from other living organisms. This is the primary difference between GMOs and gene-edited products. Thus, GMOs usually involve the introduction of external genes, whilst gene-edited products do not always involve the introduction of external genes. But as far as agriculture is concerned, both strategies are aimed at producing better-yielding, more resilient, and climate-smart crops and animals.

Gene-edited products under development in Africa

The Innovative Genomics Institute in the USA is using CRISPR genome-editing techniques to remove harmful cyanide from some cassava species. Researchers in the US and Uganda are utilising CRISPR to develop cassava with increased tolerance to cassava brown streak virus. Field trials of cassava resistant to brown streak and mosaic viruses produced using the gene-editing technology, are currently underway in Uganda and Kenya. To combat the spread of the banana streak virus, scientists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) are working to create virus-resistant banana cultivars using gene-editing. The IITA in Nigeria is developing bananas resistant to banana bacterial wilt and banana streak virus, using gene-editing. Corteva Agri-Science and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) are working on a gene-editing project in Kenya to develop maize varieties that are resistant to maize lethal necrosis, a viral disease that causes severe crop loss.

Sorghum is a staple crop in Africa, and scientists at the University of Queensland in Australia and their African partners have produced a high-protein cultivar of the grain using gene-editing, which is awaiting release authorisation. Sorghum variants resistant to Striga, a parasitic plant, are being developed at the Kenyatta University in Kenya using gene-editing, a CRISPR technique. Scientists at Penn State University in the USA are using CRISPR to breed cocoa varieties that are resistant to the cocoa swollen shoot virus (CSSV), a virus that causes widespread and debilitating damage to the chocolate tree in West Africa. The IITA in Kenya employed gene-editing to pinpoint disease-fighting and heat-resistant genes in bananas. In Ghana, a scientist at the University of Cape Coast, Samuel Acheampong, is using gene-editing technology to develop a sweet potato variety with improved vitamin A content and higher yield. Scientists in the USA have developed reduced trans-fat oils and high-fibre grains through gene-editing. They have also developed hornless and heat-tolerant cattle, and fast-growing tilapia as the first gene-edited products to be consumed in that country.

Contrasting the product with the process

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which came into force in 2003 governs how products from genetic engineering should be approved worldwide. GM regulations in various countries resulting from the signing of this protocol have created a cumbersome and expensive regulatory procedure which averagely takes at least a decade to get a GMO approved. To protect gene-edited crops from having to go through such burdensome regulatory steps, scientists across Africa and throughout the world have quickly drawn the line between GMOs and gene-edited products. They insist that gene-edited products should not go through approval procedures like regular GMOs, particularly when they contain no foreign genetic material, and the resulting trait can happen through natural changes in the plant. 

In the USA, the United States Department of Agriculture says gene-edited products with no foreign materials will not be regulated as regular GMOs. They will rather go through regulatory procedures that non-GMO seeds go through. A lot of north and south American countries like Argentina and Canada have followed this route. Nonetheless, genome-edited crops have been categorised as GMOs by the European Union. All over the world, countries are still navigating how to approach the approval of gene-edited products. Some of India’s most prominent agricultural scientists wrote to Prime Minister, Narendra Modi in 2021 expressing concern about what they say is a lack of urgency in deciding on approval processes for gene-edited crops.

Until now, no country in Africa has enacted regulations specific to gene-editing. However, conversations have begun. In 2016, the Department of Science and Technology in South Africa commissioned an expert report on the regulatory implications of new breeding techniques like gene-editing, but no action has been taken yet. Legislators in Nigeria have discussed amending the Biosafety Act of 2015 to include legislation on gene-editing in agriculture, as the current law only provides a framework for permitting the release of GMOs. However, a guideline was published in 2020 as an interim measure, a move that the Kenyan National Biosafety Authority replicated in 2022. It looks like in most African countries; ongoing gene-editing works are likely to be governed by the GM regulations that currently exist. We however think it will make a lot of sense if gene-edited products without foreign genetic materials are regulated as non-GMOs.

Authors

Kojo Ahiakpa is team lead and agribusiness advisor at Research Desk Consulting Limited.

Joseph Opoku Gakpo is country lead at Alliance for Science Ghana.

Benjamin Karikari is a lecturer and consultant at the University for Development Studies and Research Desk Consulting Limited, respectively.

SARAH EVANEGA: PIONEERING A NEW MODEL OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

On Jan. 7, Sarah Evanega stepped down as director of the Alliance for Science (a global science communications initiative based at the Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University, USA) to assume a new position at Pairwise, a gene editing start-up. In the eight years since she founded the Alliance, Evanega has mobilized and led an international coalition of communicators who advocate for science-based solutions to the key challenges facing the world.

Evanega built a strong foundation for the Alliance, which supports global access to life-improving innovations while actively countering misinformation about agricultural biotechnology, climate change, vaccines, COVID-19 and other issues. Though her absence will be strongly felt, her legacy remains both in the organization she nurtured and the visionary science communication model that she created. I’ve named it the Layperson Model.

Sarah Evanega speaking in Bangladesh

How does this model work?

Communicating science is a complex endeavor. For years, one common model directed scientists to speak out about the work they do, with the hope that more information would help the public adopt fact-based attitudes toward scientific innovations and emerging technologies.

Evanega turned this top-down practice on its head by bringing together ordinary people — farmers, journalists, musicians, youth advocates, religious leaders, students, politicians, community organizers — who shared the dream of improving the world, even though they may have lacked formal training in science.

Through both regional training programs and her flagstone Global Leadership Fellows Program, which I joined in 2016, she then empowered these champions with the skills and knowledge to effectively communicate about scientific innovations in their own communities. Once they were trained, Evanega wished them luck and urged them to call her when they met challenges along the way or needed further support. Under this model, the only qualification needed to effectively communicate about science is a passion for addressing challenges like food insecurity, climate change and public health misinformation.

This has proven to be an effective strategy because the Layperson Model puts the messenger at the center of science communication. Research shows that people are more likely to accept or reject scientific innovations based on motivations like the credibility of the messenger, rather than the message itself. This model helps build trust and positively impacts persuasion efforts in the most fundamental way.

With this model, substantive investment is made in equipping local people with the scientific knowledge to carry evidence-based messages into their own circles. This helps ensure that complex science issues are broken down into simple messages that can be easily digested by lay audiences. The Layperson Model also allows for the incorporation of local socio-political contexts and different perspectives in communication messages, improving their likelihood of their acceptance.

Multiple perspectives and varying domains of knowledge, including personal and cultural values, are all crucial in effective communication. This model facilitates that approach by creating more trustworthy channels instead of using outsiders that local communities cannot identify with as messengers.

Growing a global network

The second underlying principle of the Layperson Model is growing a global network to communicate the science. The model encourages collaboration while discouraging ownership of scientific technologies by majority groups, which tends to relegate minority groups to a subservient role as mere recipients of the technology. Currently, the Alliance for Science has more than 13,000 science allies across the world.

Engaging global networks to communicate about science allows for good incorporation of indigenous knowledge in the education and outreach process. As experts in the communication space will argue, personal and community values shape how people assimilate scientific messages. Local communities are less suspicious when information about controversial science topics is shared by their own members, thereby increasing persuasion. This is exactly how the Layperson Model of science communication works.

Localized actions by global networks also make it possible for science champions to properly contextualize the possible benefits of innovation and technology. People hardly pay attention to science, although they encounter and benefit from it everyday. Most of the time, they will attempt to understand it only when they need to make important decisions that relate to their own lives.

Local communicators can also quickly hear about and correct misconceptions and outright disinformation about scientific innovations before the misinformation gets entrenched.

Though the emphasis is on local engagement, the global network serves as a larger support system that regional science champions can turn to when they need help for their own outreach efforts or want to brainstorm ideas. The network can also effectively engage participants in international venues like the United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change and the recent United Nations Food Systems Summit.

This summary reflects how I personally have observed Evanega’s Layperson Model of science communication play out in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. She has publicly said that she doesn’t mind if other science groups “steal” the model for their own use. I urge them to do so because I can testify to its effectiveness.

By Joseph Opoku Gakpo

Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellow

Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell University – USA

5 CRITICAL FOOD ISSUES THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO IN 2022

Happy new year to all farmers and agricultural sector stakeholders across the country who are working to keep Ghana food secure. In 2021, this nation faced a number of agricultural sector challenges including hikes in the prices of basic food commodities that we need to be careful about in 2022. In this article, we draw attention to five critical food sector issues that the Minister for Food and Agriculture Dr. Owusu Afriyie Akoto, and the government in general need to pay attention to in 2022.  

1) Rising cost of food

The first of such issues is the rising cost of food in the country. Despite the repeated rhetoric by the Minister for Food and Agriculture that food prices in the country are amazingly low, the reality on the ground is far different. The evidence is in data published by the Statistics, Research, and Information Directorate of the Ministry for Food and Agriculture (MOFA). Between January and October 2021, the average price of maize rose by 56%, price of plantain rose by 74%, price of tomato rose by 44%, price of yam rose by 20%, and price of fresh pepper rose by 54%. Additionally, over that same period, price of cassava rose by about 6%, yam by 20% and rice by 12%. What this means is that it was more difficult for people to buy these foods and others that they needed to stay satisfied and healthy. Make no mistake, claims that when food prices rise, farmers make more money is a myth. Nothing can be further from the truth. Food prices usually rise because of rising cost of inputs. In the end farmers’ profits either do not increase at all or falls. The reality is that there is a general rise in the prices of food across the globe but that cannot be an excuse for us not to do anything about it at home. One way around it is for government to increase subsidies to farmers in a better targeted manner, so they are cushioned when it comes to the rising prices of inputs. Otherwise, things will get out of hand in 2022.

2) Dependence on foreign support to the agricultural sector 

The 2022 budget statement that got approved by parliament allocates 1.1 billion Ghana Cedis to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for expenditures this year. Out of that amount, 293 million Cedis will be coming from foreign donors or development partners, 11.5 million Cedis will be coming from internally generated funds and 798.5 million Cedis will come directly from the government of Ghana. That means about 26.6% of the total funding for the sector will come from abroad. But this is what we need to watch out for. World over, donor partners are increasingly moving resources from various sectors to the health sector because of the Covid-19 pandemic. We hope that a good chunk of the projected support from Ghana’s development partners to the agricultural sector comes through. But government needs to pay attention and ensure that any possible shortfalls are augmented locally. The reality is that the total sum of money these development partners send to the developing world has not increased much since Covid-19 hit. They are only shifting around the same or even less resources. So, let’s be careful, and the government of Ghana must be ready to step in if the donor support to agriculture shrinks.

Farmer working on his farm field

3) One-village, One-dam Initiative needs salvaging in 2022 or never

2022 should be the year the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government revives the One-village, One-dam Initiative for farmers in the savannah belt of Ghana, or never. We are all seeing climate change cause poor rainfall patterns and long periods of no rain in several parts of the world. We heard from Ghana government officials during the United Nations’ Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow last year, as they repeatedly emphasized the administration’s commitment to investments that will mitigate the impact of climate change on the populace. We believe no single government policy has the potential to help farmers in the savannah belt deal better with climate change than the One-village, One-dam Initiative. We were told that these dams will be multipurpose water storage structures that will help provide water all year round for small holder farming activities, livestock rearing as well as for domestic purpose. The dams were supposed to have sizes covering 2 to 3 hectares, be about 2.5m below and another 2.5 m above ground level, be capable of holding about 30,000 cubic meters of water, have inlet-outlet structures to supply water downstream (to irrigation farms) from the small dams, as well as spillway to control the level of water in the dams. But as research conducted by the Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana in 2020 revealed, less than 50% of the dams promised to farmers in the Upper East Region Region had been done, and majority of the dams were not serving their purposes. The situation has since not changed much. If there is any single policy initiative the government needs to roll out crucially that could vastly transform agriculture in the northern belt, it is providing farmers there with irrigation facilities. Otherwise, a lot of farmers up north will soon struggle to produce enough food to feed themselves, and the rest of the country. In 2022, the government should prioritise providing the promised dams, spend 2023 dealing with whatever bottlenecks may emerge, and probably spend 2024 properly integrating the policy in the Ghana Irrigation Development Authority’s structures, so it becomes a lasting legacy.

4) GMOs

The government needs to clarify what exactly its policy position on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is, because 2022 will be a crucial year for GMOs in Ghana. There is no doubt GMOs have become a controversial subject world over. All agriculture sector stakeholders need to get interested in the conversation on GMOs and government must lead the way. In November last year, a new 13-member board for the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), the nation’s GMO regulator was sworn into office by the Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI). Earlier in the year, scientists at the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) submitted documentation to the authority, requesting for environmental release of Ghana’s first GMO crop, Bt cowpea (beans), which has inherent resistance to pest attacks. But the authority asked the scientists to hold on until a new board is in place. Now that the new board is in place, that process is expected to resume. And after the application is sent, the authority will have 6 months or so to return with a decision. So, we are likely to see a lot of activity in the GMO space this year. At the swearing in ceremony, the Minister Dr. Kwaku Afriyie disclosed “in my office, I know that (there are) GMO linked products which are waiting for go ahead for the next phase.” The stance of MESTI since the days of Dr. Kwabena Frimpong Boateng has been, supporting approval for GMOs. But the Minister for Food and Agriculture Dr. Akoto Owusu Afriyie is on record in 2019 to have said the ‘Ghanaian society was seriously against it (GMOs) “and, indeed, we don’t need it”’. For a minute, let’s put aside the debate about whether GMOs are good or bad, and ask the administration to let the people of this country know its policy position on the technology, so we can all have a national conversation about it.

5) Agriculture is the economy’s backbone; it deserves better attention

The final critical issue we want the government to pay attention to in 2022 is that “agriculture is the economy’s backbone and it deserves better attention.” This is nothing new but we believe it is necessary to reiterate it in 2022. As we all know, agriculture is the second largest sector of Ghana’s economy, and more than half of the country’s population live in rural areas and are engaged in agricultural activities as their means of survival. Government needs to allocate a more substantial portion of the national budget towards the sector to ensure we build an equitable and sustainable food system. We need to address challenges of low public sector investment in the sector, low institutional capacity, poor marketing systems, land tenure challenges, low penetration of mechanisation services, low transfer and uptake of research findings, as well as low application of science and technology to production. We also need to deal with challenges of low investment in the local livestock, fisheries and poultry industries. The approach to improving agriculture has to be wholistic. Government cannot do it alone. But government has a responsibility to show it wants these challenges dealt with, as the sure way to attract adequate private sector support to improve the agricultural sector.

Authors: Sebuava Sedudzi is a graduate student pursuing an MSc in Agriculture Economics and Management at the College of Agriculture, Economics and Management, China Agricultural University – China. Joseph Opoku Gakpo is an AgBioFEWS (Agricultural Biotechnology In Our Evolving Food, Energy, and Water Systems) Fellow at the Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University – USA.

THE ELVIS KWASHIE I EXPERIENCED

Exactly a week ago today, news broke that our boss, our mentor, our friend, our brother, and our father Elvis Koku Kwashie who was general manager for Joy brands at the Multimedia Group Limited, gave up the ghost the night before after a short illness.

I remember that Wednesday morning like it was yesterday. I was in a phone conversation with my colleague Seth Kwame Boateng discussing a range of issues including the need to keep praying for Elvis’ speedy recovery. 30 minutes or so into the conversation, Seth said he just got an update via text that the worse had happened and that the boss had passed on, and so he would have to call me back. It was like a sword had been pierced through my heart. It felt like a knife had been stabbed through my hand. It felt like my skull been crushed with a block.

I didn’t want to believe it and so I texted Seth some minutes after he hanged up and said, “kindly keep me updated if you confirm.” He texted back immediately and said, “it is true. He is gone bro.”I froze. My body, mind, virtually all my senses just froze at the same time. I just got up from my computer, went to lay in bed shivering in the midst of warmth, re-read messages we had exchanged in the past, and just tried to sleep off without success.

Our last conversation was on the 1^st of December 2021, 7:09 am GMT.

Elvis wrote: “Prof. Gakpo. How are you? Out of sight, out of mind.”

I replied: “Mr. Kwashie. Good morning sir. The way me and you are, you can never be out of mind when you are out of sight.”

Elvis wrote: “Tweaaaa. Raps.”

I wrote: “I usually don’t want to be interrupting your very, very busy schedule. Which is why you don’t hear from me most often.”

Elvis replied: “You are my brother. Don’t do that. Always available.”

I’ve been on leave from work for some months now. I left the country along the line and got back quietly a few days before that text from Elvis came through.

So, I wrote: “I came to town over the weekend ooo Mr. Kwashie.”

Elvis wrote: “Eiiii. I never knew you came to town… As a father you can feel it when your son is close.”

Before I could type anything else, he called. He said he was even wondering why he texted me because in his mind’s eye, I was in the US. And it was like 2am in the US. But he just felt I was close. I asked how things were in the office and he said he hadn’t been well and so had been home recovering. I told him I will be attending an event at the University of Ghana to mark Farmers’ Day the following day and would pass by the house and say hello to him once that is done. He said I should call him when I’m coming. I called the following day, and his line was off. The rest of the story, as they always say, is history. I never imagined that was the last time we would ever engage on earth.  

It was one of those moments of care, love, and affection as he has always shown me. Including during our very first encounter. It was sometime in March or April 2011, I don’t quiet remember. I walked to the front desk of Joy FM and said I was there to see Elvis Kwashie. I didn’t know him from anywhere and had never spoken to him. The year before in 2010, I posted an internship application letter to Joy FM, and followed up with phone calls from my base in Kumasi. That internship opportunity never worked out. So, in 2011, I said I will implement a different strategy. I will take the letter there myself and speak to whoever is in charge. Days before that, I was listening to the Super Morning Show on Joy FM via Luv FM. Then I heard the host then, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah give a shout out to his managing editor Elvis Kwashie. So, I wrote down the name and said to myself, this is definitely the guy to make a mark on. Days later, I traveled to the Western Region with my colleague then Audrey Kareen Gambrah on a volunteering programme, and when we were returning to campus in Kumasi, I decided to do a stopover at Joy FM in Accra.

When I got to the reception and asked of Elvis Kwashie, the receptionist had a lot of questions for me too. She asked if I had called him. I said no. She asked if I had an appointment, I said no. She asked if the purpose was official or personal? I told her it’s semi-official. So, she asked me to sit down. After about 45 minutes later, Elvis emerged at the front desk, introduced himself and asked to what he owes this visit. I told him I’m a young journalist who has had some radio experience, including at Kapital radio, and was pursuing a Bsc in Agricultural Biotechnology at KNUST. I told him I want to do an internship at Joy FM to learn more, and I heard on radio that he is the managing editor. So, I came with my application for internship. After series of questions and answers, Elvis told me his newsroom was full. But because of the confidence I displayed by showing up to come speak to him when I didn’t know him from anywhere, he would give me the opportunity. He said I can go back to school and return when vacation begins for pre-internship assessment. I went back 2 months later to the Joy FM front desk, during which I met my good friend Sandra Armaquaye who was also there from KNUST looking for internship, and we both went through the assessment. I got the opportunity days later, and that was how I got my first three-month stint in the Joy FM newsroom. Over that internship period, Elvis was very supportive. Getting to the end of the internship, the human resource manager then, Tina, called me up to her office upstairs and handed me an envelope which contained money. She said they don’t pay interns, but Elvis has recommended me as hard working, which is why they were giving me that token of appreciation.  

For the two years I was back in school, Elvis and I stayed in touch. And I resumed internship there in June 2013, soon after I finished school. He documented me in the system as Ashaiman Correspondent, so I could get paid for stories I filed, although I was an intern. In August 2013, Elvis made sure my national service posting to the Ejura – Sekyeredumase District Assembly was changed to Joy FM. I got my employment letter immediately after my one-year national service period ended. Elvis made it happen because he had promised he will make it happen months before.

Elvis was a generous guy. Sometime in 2013, he asked me to escort him somewhere. I followed without asking questions. We walked to a shoe shop at the Sadisco traffic light near Joy FM, and he asked the attendant to give me a shoe of my size which he paid for. There were days when you will go say goodbye to him at his desk at the end of the day, and he will dip his hand in his pocket and dash you money. At the end of 2013, he organized an end of year ceremony in the newsroom and awarded cash prizes. He said I was his best recruit for the period he has been in charge and for me, that felt very inspiring.

Sometime in late 2015, I tendered in my resignation at Joy FM because I had a different offer. I turned off my phone after tendering in the resignation at the human resource department on Elvis’ blindside, called in sick, and went to sleep at home awaiting to start my new job. One of those days when I turned the phone on temporarily, his call came through. We had a long conversation about why I did not have to leave. I went to see him in the office the following day. He said I should go and tell the human resource people that I am withdrawing the resignation letter. When I went to the human resource department, they told me the letter had already been withdrawn on my behalf and so I can go back to work.

Sometime in 2016, when I spent 4 months at Cornell University in USA as a Global Leadership Fellow, he came visiting. I participated in a panel discussion on agriculture and Elvis was in the audience. Everyone commended the panel members for a good conversation. Elvis did too, but he looked beyond the ordinary. When we stepped out of the venue, he commended me for a great show. “But you talk too much, Gakpo,” Elvis added. He said I can’t sit on a panel with others and be talking plenty like that because I think I am a journalist. Elvis was always very critical because he tried to bring the best out of his staff. He additionally took interest in his workers’ personal development beyond the professional work. He used to quiz me about whether I went to church the Sunday before and whether I paid my tithe. He would always ask, “so the ‘chick’ you take come my house, when you go marry am?”

I wrote these words about him in 2013 when I published an article thanking my top 11 supporters that year. He was number 2, and team Joy FM was number 1. “Joy FM’s Managing News Editor Elvis Kwashie has been more than just a boss and a friend, but also a teacher and a father. With his love, care, advice, teaching, and generosity, Elvis has been the most utilized person God has used in blessing me in the year 2013. He not only handed me the greatest opportunity that have come my way over the last 23 years of my life, but he has made conscious efforts to ensure that I succeed. He not only does news stuff coaching, but he goes out of his way to provide the material needs that keeps body and soul together.” 8 years on, I could find no better string of words to describe what you mean to me because “words fail me”.

Today, those calls of yours that always send shivers down one’s spine will not come through anymore. Those end of year visits to your house will not be the same anymore. And the way you will hit our backs or tickle us when you walked through the office, we will experience no more. You called us “hard guys”. You said we are “smart”. You used to say you lead the “best news team”. Thanks very much for a good career. Thanks very much for all the love. Thanks very much for everything. Rest well. No more denying that your life has come to an end Elvis. But your legacies and the greatness you inspired in people across this land, will forever remain. R. I. P. #TheRealBoss.

By Joseph Opoku Gakpo

PRESS STATEMENT ON WHAT GOVERNMENT’S AGRICULTURAL PRIORITIES SHOULD BE IN 2022

Tuesday 4^th January 2022

Press statement by the Ghana Agricultural and Rural Development Journalists Association (GARDJA) on what government’s agricultural priorities should be in 2022

There is no doubt that the just ended year, 2021, has been a difficult agriculture year. Data from the Statistics, Research, and Information directorate of the Ministry for Food and Agriculture shows that between January and October 2021, the prices of major food crops like maize, yam, cassava, tomatoes, rice, and yam increased by between 12 and 73%. What this means is that it was more difficult for people to buy the foods they need to stay satisfied and healthy.

The contributory factors include poor management of the sector, and external shocks. Here, we are referring to poor management situations like delayed release of funds for major policy interventions like the Fertiliser Subsidy Programme, and external shocks like Covid-19 disruptions to the global agriculture supply chain and climate change.

The challenges with poor management of the sector have always been with us. They did not start today. Fixing them will require clearly thought through policy initiatives, and enhanced commitment from various stakeholders to help develop the sector, particularly from government. In this statement, we offer 5 suggested measures government needs to take to help improve upon the agricultural sector which we are confident if taken seriously will make Ghana self-sufficient in food production. An improved agricultural sector will also help provide the teeming youth of the country with the necessary jobs that can help them live decent lives.

First of all, we need to see a proper decentralization of the management of Ghana’s agricultural sector. The decision by government to make the departments of agriculture across the country more accountable to local assemblies through the local government system instead of them being subsidiaries of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, is laudable. But that means nothing if conscious efforts are not made to channel resources directly from the central government to these district agricultural department offices to provide quality extension services to farmers, support them with mechanization services as well as subsidized inputs. The local assemblies should prioritise agricultural activities and make sure they provide adequate investments at their levels to support farmers in their enclaves. Money is needed to finance the transportation and logistical needs of extension officers so they can get research outputs and scientific and innovative techniques to the farmers. The local government system must support financially.

Farmers clear their fields

Secondly, government needs to make use of its purchasing power to make life better for smallholder producers. It doesn’t make sense that government funded initiatives like the School Feeding Programme sometimes rely on imported food products. The local agricultural economy must be propped up with local and national government funding. There must be a conscious effort by the state at the national and local level to create conducive environments for the marketing of farm produces for the benefit of Ghanaian farmers.

Thirdly, it is about time we tackled head on the challenge of inadequate protection of farmlands in the country. In semi – urban areas, estate developers have vigorously taken over agricultural lands, forcing smallholder producers out of work. And then in the rural areas, we are seeing a creeping culture of food crop farmlands being taken over aggressively by large scale plantation growers like rubber farming companies, which has the potential to negatively impact food production in some of these areas. Government must intervene and properly zone out farming lands that should be no – go areas for physical infrastructural development.

With the impact of climate change now upon us all, we will urge the government to speed up work on improving the country’s irrigation system and revive the abandoned projects of the failed One-village One-dam Policy. Let’s face it, that policy is a failure. As farmers across the country have observed, the policy has created nonexistent and useless dams that haven’t made any difference in their lives. The concept of providing farmers with irrigation facilities is a good move that must necessarily be pursued to the very latter. But clearly, the One-village One-dam initiative was mismanaged in a way that prioritized special interest benefits over the interest of the farmers who feed the country. Now is the time for a more effective revitalisation of this initiative for the benefit of farmers.

Finally, our development partners and agencies that support Ghana’s agricultural sector need to improve the level of involvement of farmers in the planning and implementation of their projects. We need to properly develop systems for measuring the impact, sustainability, and quality of exit strategies for these projects, and properly integrate them in Ghana’s home-grown agricultural policies and programmes. A lot of these agricultural projects have been running for years with little to show as evidence of success. We have so many agriculture focused NGOs operating up north which say they are working to create more agricultural jobs. But migration from there to the south continues to skyrocket. There must be a coordinated platform among the civil society organisations in the agricultural sector so they can work together for the benefit of farmers. Government needs to provide leadership on this front so we can get the best out of our development partners.

These ideas as we have enumerated above are actually nothing new. They revolve around the same ideas we have been tossing around over the years as actions we need to take to improve upon the agricultural sector. But it is important to reiterate them for urgent action because the challenges with the hike in food prices we saw last year was a clear warning that unless drastic actions are taken, danger looms in 2022. Minus immediate bold interventions, 2022 is likely to come along with even more drastic increase in prices of food stuff, deepening inequalities among the farming population and an increase in Ghana’s dependence on foreign foods, as well as loss of agricultural jobs. Immediate government action is needed now.

Signed

Richmond Frimpong (0268909020/0246509360) President, GARDJA

Joseph Opoku Gakpo (0247714498) Deputy General Secretary, GARDJA

About GARDJA The Ghana Agricultural and Rural Development Journalists Association (GARDJA) is an association of about 300 journalists and communicators working to promote issues of environment, agriculture and rural development in the media space. GARDJA is an affiliate of the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists (IFAJ), the world’s largest association of agricultural communication practitioners with membership covering more than 50 countries.