The department does not use genetically modified maize seed

The article in the Daily Dispatch on 26 May about the Eastern Cape Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform using poor people as “genuine pigs” by testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their fields is misleading and a blatant lie.

It ought to be mentioned from the onset that the department in its Green Revolution programme, which in this case is implemented through Siyakhula and Massive Food programmes, has never utilised any GMO seed.

The type of seeds used by the department, in Amathole District where the “research” was done, are the PAN 6480 and PAN 6966 and are not regarded as GMO seed. These seeds are widely used in the commercial production programmes and are openly used for the feeding of livestock, which are in turn consumed by human beings.

The department has no “controversial plan” as alleged by the article to “misuse” rural people’s land but it aims to assist the farmers to increase the production of nutritious food through the Siyakhula and Massive Food Production Programme.

The aim of this programme is to stimulate the commercial production of fundamental food crops, in this case maize, in the underdeveloped but high potential production areas with the purpose of overcoming challenges that limit the use land. Ours is to plough the unused land not to use our people as “genuine pigs”.

The department questions the “research report” by Masifunde Education and Development Trust in which the article was based on because the so-called field researchers did not consult with the communities concerned before concluding that their projects have failed.

It is surprised that the said “research report” says only Nxarhuni  village was “doing well” in the department’s alleged “plan to misuse rural farmers” in its Green Revolution programme. Actually, it is an insult because the Nxarhuni was never part of the programme and this begs a question about the credibility of the “research” as well the method used to collect the information.

The mentioning of Peelton as failure has not only angered Majali residents where the programme is implemented in the Peelton area, it has made them to question the motive behind such a “research” because they believe for anyone to say their project is failure that should have been informed by their comments and supporting documents but no one ever visited the area from the “researchers.”

The project in Majali is one of our extremely successful communal projects in the Amathole District and, following the publication of the article, members of the project pointed out that anyone, including the researchers and journalists, was welcome to go and see for themselves.

The only villages mentioned in the articles where the Siyakhula/Massive Food Production
Programme had challenges are in the Peddie area - Prudhoe and Mgababa villages.
The challenges in the two village is climate condition, Prudhoe’s project was discontinued in 2009 and in Mgababa the erratic rain patterns severely affected production, therefore farmers and departmental officials agreed to low the yields.

The allegation of favouring big companies and suppliers is not true because farmers obtained and signed their own quotations that were then sent to the Eastern Cape Rural Finance Corporation (Uvimba Bank), which managed the finances.

The department does not decide on which contractors to be used in preparing the land, for example, Majali has chosen a nearby commercial farmer to do soil preparation and they also have tractors supplied by the department.

The allegations about non-transparency of the costs of inputs and lack of training and unreliable service providers points squarely to the fact that the “researcher/s” did their research in a vacuum, so to speak because farmers have a clear understanding about the costs and how to plough productively because of the training provided.

Furthermore, the tying of the farmers for a period of five years to the programme is not forceful as the participant can withdraw at any time he or she wants.

It is very much disturbing to read that the department was “doing experiments” while it is striving to develop rural communities and it is clear the article and the “research” thereof is not a true reflection of what is happening on the ground.

Source: Eastern Cape Rural Development and Agrarian Reform