National experiences, whether in Africa, Asia or Latin America, must be considered in the wider context of international trade politics. This is highlighted by the ongoing World Trade Organisation dispute between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). This presents many risks and opportunities for developing countries.

Some developing countries are vulnerable to the risks of losing markets in the EU through GM contamination. In Namibia, where approximately 80% of the country’s meat exports go to the EU, livestock farmers are concerned that GM animal feed entering the country unofficially could undermine the confidence of European consumers.

The export of American GM food aid to famine-affected countries in southern Africa has also provoked suspicion that the US government is attempting to achieve acceptance of GM crops gradually. Senior US officials argue that it is more important to feed starving people than worry about the concerns of EU countries. However, African governments are concerned about both the safety of biotechnology and protecting their future trading relations with key export markets in the EU. These concerns contributed to Zambia’s decision to refuse US food aid altogether, while Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe agreed to accept shipments on the condition that they were milled to prevent planting.

Larger countries may be relatively insulated from the EU-US tussle. China and India both have large domestic markets, which may enable them to commercialise certain GM crops without threatening exports. A recent analysis of GM commercialisation in China argues that the country could realise significant gains domestically from commercialising some GM crops, regardless of the policies adopted by potential export markets. Brazil could have taken advantage of the difficulties faced by US producers and shippers in meeting the EU demand for non-GM supplies of crops such as soya beans. However, the Brazilian government has recently accepted GM soya production and export, preventing them from taking advantage of this opportunity.

Source(s):
‘GMOs and the politics of international trade’, Democratising Biotechnology, Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series, Briefing 5, D. Glover, 2003 Full document.
‘Debating GM crops’ insights #52, December 2004 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development (DFID), UK

id21 Research Highlight: 14 December 2004

Further Information:
Dominic Glover
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK

Contact the contributor: d.glover@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
Sites for sore eyes

'Bt cotton: benefits for poor farmers?'

'From risks to rights in southern Africa'

'Regulating biotechnology'

'GM crops and the politics of international trade'

'Diversity in international biosafety regulation'

'The Chinese biotechnology experience'