Synthesis Report Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa K. Atta-Krah, F. Gasengayire, J. Ndung’u-Skilton and N. Nsubuga Edited by E. Obel-Lawson
K. Atta-Krah, F. Gasengayire, J. Ndung’u-Skilton and N. Nsubuga Edited by E. Obel-Lawson
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)
October 2004 ii REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
About IDRC
The Centre Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC, the Centre) is one of the world’s leading institutions in the generation and application of new knowledge to meet the challenges facing developing countries. IDRC funds applied research by researchers from developing countries on the problems they identify as crucial to their communities. It also provides technical support to those researchers. IDRC builds local capacity in developing countries to undertake research and create innovations, believing that people from developing countries must take the lead in producing and applying knowledge for the benefit of their own communities. IDRC also fosters alliances and knowledge sharing between scientific, academic, and development communities in Canada and developing countries.
IDRC - Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa The IDRC Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa (ESARO) is located in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi. IDRC has been working in Southern and Eastern Africa for over 25 years in such areas as information and communication technologies (ICTs), peace building, urban agriculture, health, trade and biodiversity, to name a few. The office has a staff strength of more than 35.
Further details on IDRC can be sourced from the website: http://www.idrc.ca
About IPGRI The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic diversity for the well being of present and future generations. It is one of 15 Future Harvest Centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who support efforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. IPGRI has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in more than 20 countries worldwide.
IPGRI’s programme in sub-Saharan Africa is designed to promote and enhance the conservation and use of plant genetic diversity and its contribution towards livelihoods and well-being in the continent. The programme aims to assist countries and regional programme in their work on plant genetic resources. IPGRI’s regional office for SSA is located on the compound of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). A sub-regional Office for West and Central Africa is located at IITA, Cotonou, Republic of Benin.
For further information on IPGRI global and Africa programmes, please visit this website: http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org
Disclaimer: The presentation of material in this report does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or IDRC. The views expressed are those of the authors and the workshop, and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. CONTENTS iii
Contents
Foreword...... v List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... vii Executive Summary ...... viii
Introduction ...... 1 Opening Session...... 1 Goal and Objectives ...... 2 Keynote Presentation ...... 3 Kwesi Atta-Krah Opening Session Presentations ...... 6 Opening Remarks ...... 6 Ratemo Michieka
The Conference Segment ...... 8 Session 2: Setting the Stage – Biotechnology and Development ...... 8 Session 3: GMOs for Development – The Potential Scenarios in Agriculture and Human Health ...... 10 Session 4: Alternative Viewpoints on GMOs – Risks and Concern Perspectives ...... 12 Session 5: Policy Issues and Concerns – Biosafety and IPRs ...... 14
The Workshop Segment (Working Groups) ...... 16 Working Group I – Potential Benefits and Challenges of Genetic Engineering and GMOs for Sustainable Development ...... 16 Potential benefits ...... 16 Risks and concerns that need to be addressed ...... 17 Potential barriers/challenges...... 18 Research and capacity building questions/issues ...... 19 Capacity building questions and issues ...... 20 Action plan ...... 20
Working Group II – Alternative Model or Pathway for Development and Analysis of Perceived Risks and Uncertainties in the Use of GMOs ...... 21 GE/GMOs – not a silver bullet...... 21 Risks and concerns ...... 21 Alternatives to GE/GMOs ...... 22 Potential barriers and challenges to non-GE strategies and possible solutions ...... 23 Research and capacity building issues ...... 24 Action plan ...... 24
Working Group III – Socio-Cultural/Economic and Policy Issues Related to GE/GMOs ... 25 The test is at the community level ...... 25 Barriers/challenges to be considered in relation to the enabling environment ...... 26 Research and capacity building questions/issues ...... 27 Action plan ...... 27
Conclusion ...... 28 Appendix 1: Declaration and Communiqué ...... 30 Appendix 2: Programme ...... 33 Appendix 3: List of Participants ...... 36 iv REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Cover photo (background): National Museums of Kenya FOREWORD v
Foreword
Africa is urgently in need of answers and solutions to the myriad of problems and challenges that it is faced with. Key among these problems are those related to food insecurity, poverty, environmental degradation and human health (especially HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis). Various solutions and options for addressing these problems are therefore being assessed and analyzed at various levels and in diverse fora. It is commonly held that the situation is urgent and appears to be getting even more daunting by the day.
Genetic engineering – the process leading to Genetically Modified Organisms, is one pathway that has been proffered as offering an amazing potential of contributing towards the mitigation or amelioration of the problem scenarios faced in development. Perspectives and viewpoints on genetic engineering have been divided and polarized, with two extreme schools of thought, and a range of other positions in between. Debate and discussions on the issue have been organized largely by the two lobbies; with each lobby defending and supporting their own positions. What one hears on the subject therefore depends on which meeting one attends. There has been little opportunity of getting the two positions to be discussed together with a view of resolving the conceptions and/or misconceptions in relation to the subject, and mapping out an acceptable way forward that will be in the interest of development. What is not often realized, is the fact that a large majority of people hold perspectives that fit in between the two extremes, and that such people may not easily be categorized as either pro-GMO or anti-GMO. There appears to be a need to take issues on a case-by-case basis and analyze them critically taking all concerns into account.
This regional consultation on GE/GMOs was designed for such a purpose. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC), in partnership with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) organized this workshop. It is one in a series of regional workshops being organized under the framework of IDRC, to identify research and development actions that could be undertaken in relation to GE/GMOs and development.
The consultation was not about seeking consensus, but rather seeking understanding. It brought together people with different views and perspectives in relation to the subject at hand; coming from different institutions, with different mandates and strategies. The entire organization and facilitation of the consultation was done in such a way as to accommodate differences of opinion and minimize intolerance and mistrust. Participants were made to see themselves not as opponents, but as people with different perspectives on how to deal with commonly held problems. Emphasis was given to exploring common agendas to maximize the opportunities for drawing synergies even out of the strongly held differences.
The atmosphere of the meeting was both creative and friendly, and multiple groupings of common interest formed. The success achieved in this consultation was due, to a very large degree, to the open platform created for the different viewpoints to be expressed, and also to the creation of room for different positions to be further developed. The three Working Groups that worked to define the way forward and the recommendations, operated not from a single forced hypotheses, but from different hypotheses reflecting the respective viewpoints. An exciting outcome was the mutual conciliatory manner within which positions were defined, and the several common themes and issues that came out of the three working groups. These pointed to certain areas of agreement, as well as areas in which there was “agreement to disagree”.
Many individuals helped to make this consultation successful. We would like to thank all the participants for their active participation and dedication. The organizers are particularly grateful to all the paper presenters at the consultation; the high quality of the presentations has been vi REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT sighted as one of the strong points of this consultation. We also wish to thank the Logistics Team and the Technical Steering Team that were put together by IDRC and IPGRI, responsible for implementing this consultation.
We look forward to emerging programmes of action arising from this regional consultation that would support eradication of food insecurity, poverty, disease and environmental degradation on the continent of AFRICA.
François Gasengayire Kwesi Atta-Krah Senior Program Officer Regional Director IDRC-ESARO IPGRI-SSA ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation – Kenya ABS Access Benefit Sharing ACODE Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ARC Agricultural Research Council ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern Africa AU African Union BCH Biosafety Clearing House Bt Bacillus thuringiensis CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid ENVIROCARE Environmental, Human Rights Care and Gender Organization ESA East and Southern Africa ESARO IDRC – Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations) GE Genetic engineering GEF Global Environment Facility GMO Genetically Modified Organism HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre IDRC International Development Research Centre IK Indigenous Knowledge IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute IPM Integrated Pest Management IPR International Property Rights ISD Institute for Sustainable Development ITK Indigenous Technological Knowledge KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute LMO Living Modified Organism MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging MTA Material Transfer Agreement NARS National Agricultural Research Systems NBF National Biosafety Framework NEMA National Environment Management Authority NGO Nongovernmental Organization PELUM Participatory Ecological Land-Use Management - Kenya rDNA Recombinant DNA SSA sub-Saharan Africa TB Tuberculosis UNEP United Nations Environment Programme viii REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Executive Summary
The Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/Genetically Modified Organisms (GE/ GMOs) for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa was held at the Nairobi Safari Club, Nairobi, Kenya from 20 to 22 September 2004, as part of an IDRC-wide consultation process. It was organized by IDRC-Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa in partnership with IPGRI-Sub-Saharan Africa. The main goal of the consultation was to improve awareness and understanding of different stakeholder perspectives in relation to genetic engineering/GMOs, and identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advance the course of development in the sub-region in relation to agriculture, human health and the environment. Given the breadth of opinions and perspectives on genetic engineering/GMOs, a careful process was designed to ensure a balanced representation of a cross-section of stakeholders including researchers, civil society representatives, farmer and consumer groups’ representatives, and policy makers. Eighty two people coming from 14 countries in the sub-region attended the workshop. As a precursor to the workshop an electronic consultation was conducted to obtain inputs from a large cross-section of stakeholders. A total of 250 individuals including participants of the workshop were served with a questionnaire and 80 responded. The survey outcomes were presented and discussed at the workshop as further input into the consultation. The programme for the workshop was structured into two main segments: (i) a conference segment, comprising a number of presentations in plenary, followed by discussions; and (ii) a workshop segment, involving three working groups. The working groups were designed around three different viewpoints or hypotheses, as follows:
1. GE/GMOs is a viable technology option that could effectively contribute towards development in Africa 2. GE/GMOs is a risky option, and not necessarily the most cost effective, relevant and safest pathway for future development 3. Neither GMOs nor any other technological innovation will work at community level unless the necessary socio-cultural parameters and policy environment is created and taken into consideration
The working groups synthesized key issues, concerns and challenges, and identified research and capacity needs that would help resolve controversies and lead to development. The workshop offered an opportunity for participants to reflect on the gravity of challenges facing development in Africa. These related to poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, poor human health, and environmental degradation. Participants underlined the role of Africa’s biodiversity in addressing these problems. Different viewpoints and perspectives on GE/GMOs were exchanged. One school of thought represented the view that biotechnology, including GE/GMOs, holds a great potential for Africa’s development and therefore needs to be effectively exploited, taking biosafety considerations into account. Potential benefits attributed to modern biotechnology (GE/GMOs) included: increase in agricultural production and profits; reduced use of pesticides; improvement of the nutritional content of foods; creation of bioreactors for the pharmaceutical industry; production of vaccines; and the potential to break the ‘diseases of poverty’—HIV/ AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. These views were supported by reports on ongoing case studies such as: Bt maize in Kenya where good control of most stem borer species has been observed; GE experiments in South Africa on fruit crops seeking to combat disease resistance experienced with conventional fruit production techniques; and the findings of an FAO report - The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? Some specific research and capacity building needs coming from the analysis of this viewpoint were: farmer needs assessment and needs-based research; development of criteria and indicators to evaluate appropriateness, environment, and impact of modern biotechnology (GE/GMOs) on food security; improvement of agricultural productivity (of main local crops) through addressing biotic and abiotic constraints (pest and disease resistance, drought-tolerance, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix and poor soils); identification of specific areas where GE could remove constraints to productivity with a competitive advantage to conventional techniques; risk and environmental assessments; development of awareness programs to monitor and enhance the circulation of appropriate and verified information on GE/GMOs targeting various stakeholders including farmers, the general public, and policy makers; and support capacity development in all aspects pertaining to GE/GMOs, i.e. human resources, research and development, technology transfer, biosafety infrastructure, policy and IPR issues, etc. The second school of thought argued that the technology (GE/GMOs) was too risky, and indeed unnecessary at this point in time, as there were suitable alternative pathways. This group believed that GE/GMOs could reduce farmers’ options and yet does not address their priority problems such as lack of access to credit, and climatic hazards. There is concern over the potential loss of the small-scale farmers’ right to save, use and exchange their seeds, and the loss of food sovereignty. The group believed that there are several alternative options to GE/GMOs that are under-explored, under-exploited and under-funded, thus making them appear ineffective, while overwhelming emphasis appears to be going towards supporting GE/GMOs (especially by the private sector). These options include conventional plant breeding, biological control, conventional research into mixed cropping with IPM (integrated pest management), organic farming, neglected and underutilized high value crops, etc. GE should be treated as one tool among many in a toolbox. It was noted that GM technology was in its infancy and too little research and risk assessment had been done on it. African problems to which GE could only offer partial solutions include pests and diseases. Problems to which GE had no answer and, in some cases, only aggravates the problems include market access, infrastructure, poor scientific capacity and dysfunctional extension systems. Concern was expressed that GE could destroy biodiversity, and the mode of production that sustains over 70% of the small-scale farmers in Africa. Some specific research and capacity development areas recommended from this analysis included: state-of-the-art studies indicating what options the small-scale farmer has; scientific evaluation (costs and benefits) of alleged GE successes (e.g. the case of Makhathini Bt cotton); establishment of agrobiodiversity conservation programmes that should include processes for testing for the presence of GE/GMOs; creation of farmer networks to facilitate exchange of ideas and promotion of best practices; promotion of biological pest control methods including IPM and natural soil fertility improvement methods; support installation of national regulatory frameworks relating to biosafety and IPR. Participants also exchanged views on the socio-cultural, policy and legislation aspects with relevance for GE/GMOs development, testing and use. Special emphasis was given to the issues of biosafety and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). It was underscored that the idea of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) was to embrace the benefits of GMOs while ensuring adequate safety. So there was a need to redefine the scope of national biosafety policies to focus on GE/GMOs and scale up public participation. The presentation on IPRs highlighted the complexity of various forms of IPRs and related international protocols (the ‘Global IPR Maze’). It was noted that there is a multiplicity of regulatory and legal regimes and instruments but with little overall coherence. Each country needs to address its national issues and develop suitable legal, regulatory and property rights framework, as well as a sui generis legislation on ownership, control and access. The need for communication at all levels (scientist, policy, community) was also underlined. Some research and capacity development areas recommended include: participatory research on locally available technologies, socio-cultural norms and values, and needs assessment at the community and national levels; impact assessment of GE/GMOs on socio-economic, environment and cultural issues; capacity building on sourcing of research-based information, and packaging and communication of information for specific stakeholders (communities, policy makers and development workers); training on relevant policies and advocacy including but not limited to biodiversity, bio-safety and IPR at all levels; and training on participatory research methodologies and socio-gender analysis. x REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Participants identified some of the most challenging constraints/barriers. These relate to: inadequate local research and development (R and D) and regulatory frameworks to handle new technologies especially GE; incoherent and uncoordinated policies; inadequate technology extension and transfer systems; lack of market and trade infrastructure for new technologies and products; lack of access to roads and microfinance; depletion of workforce by pandemics such as HIV/AIDS and malaria; rampant poverty; bad governance; incongruous land tenure systems; and ethical and religious considerations. The consultation enabled discussion of the different options and viewpoints with regards to GE/GMOs. Ultimately however, it is hoped that the outcomes will contribute towards identification of some grounds for joint action and for research and capacity building that will promote development and food security in the region. At the end of the workshop, participants discussed and adopted a Declaration and Communiqué as a general reflection of diverse views presented during the consultation. However, after further reflection on the document, a number of organizations felt uncomfortable to be associated with the Declaration and Communiqué, and requested that they be disassociated from it. These organizations were:
• Biowatch, South Africa: represented by Ms Elfrieda Pschorn–Strauss • The Gaia Foundation, UK: represented by Ms Teresa Andersen • National Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Angola: represented by Mrs Elizabeth Matos • Mrs Bernadette Lubozhya, Zambia: Agricultural/GMO Consultant
The overall synthesis and conclusion of the workshop was, however, unanimously adopted. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction
The Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa was held at the Nairobi Safari Club, Nairobi, Kenya from 20 to 22 September 2004. Eighty-two participants comprising a cross section of stakeholder groups and institutions including research and academics, consumer groups, NGO/Civil Society, farmer groups, governmental and inter-governmental organizations, and regional networks; coming from 13 countries and 49 institutions/organizations attended the meeting. These stakeholders’ varied interests were mainly in the domains of agriculture, health, environment, trade and policy. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) jointly organized the meeting. This synthesis report presents the main outcomes of the consultation.
Opening Session Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, Regional Director of IPGRI for sub-Saharan Africa, opened the proceedings by welcoming the participants. In his introductory remarks he informed the participants that the idea of the Regional Consultation was mooted by IDRC, and IPGRI’s partnership was sought. He suggested that the central issue for the consultation should not be seen as GMOs and the conflicts surrounding them. The central issue, he said, was about people, development and the survival of our environment. The challenges of growing food insecurity, the abject poverty and environmental degradation are principal issues that are a common concern for all the interests represented at the consultation. Participants were reminded that although they had come from differently mandated organizations and held different and divergent views on the subject of GMOs, they had not gathered together as opponents or enemies. Dr Atta-Krah stressed the importance of respecting and understanding each other’s perspective, and encouraged participants to seek to learn from one another. He added that the consultation was not aiming at seeking consensus among the various viewpoints, but rather to enhance understanding and explore avenues for the emergence of a common agendas research needs for the future, for the good of the sub-region. He expressed gratitude to IDRC for spearheading the initiative, and to others who were involved in the processes of preparing for what he referred to as a ‘landmark’ meeting. Lastly he introduced the Chairperson for the event, Dr Maurice Mbegera, Director, Compliance and Enforcement, National Environment Monitoring Authority, NEMA (who was representing Prof. Ratemo Michieka, Director General of NEMA. Dr Maurice Mbegera expressed the apologies of Prof. Michieka, who had had to travel out of the country on official engagement. In his opening remarks on behalf of Prof. Michieka, Dr. Mbegera noted that crop improvement through selection and breeding of plants has been going on for centuries. However, genetic engineering/genetic modification has come as a new technology that has made it possible to change the genetic make-up of crops and at times create transgenic crops. He pointed out that the debate on both sides of the divide had gone on in isolation and was so polarized that the public was stuck in a state of confusion. He expressed his support and conviction in the approach taken by IDRC and IPGRI in organizing the consultation; he felt it had created a unique opportunity for dialogue on such an important subject. In a scene-setting presentation, Dr Constance Freeman, Regional Director, IDRC-ESARO, highlighted the fact that hunger, disease and environmental degradation were major problems on the continent, and caused a loss of options for Africa. She recalled the history of the Green Revolution and pointed out that although the revolution helped to solve hunger problems especially in India and parts of Asia, it intensified poverty as it marginalized the small-scale farmer and eroded biodiversity. The resource-poor farmers could not afford the inputs, and there were also losses of farmers’ landraces. She indicated that in some ways, GE/GMOs could be seen as the green revolution of the 21st Century. For instance, just as the green revolution, 2 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
GE/GMOs could bring solutions such as increased productivity, pest resistant crops, and vaccines, but it also comes with risks and challenges which needs to be managed. For example, how will the new organisms interact with the existing ones? What about issues such as bio- safety, socio-economic impact, private sector domineering, Intellectual Property Rights, terminator genes, and issues of culture and politics? In concluding her remarks she stressed that the idea of the meeting was to find how IDRC and the participants could work together on these concerns. Mr Wardie Leppan, IDRC-Ottawa outlined the history of IDRC’s involvement with biotechnology. He pointed out that the organization had been involved in biotechnology research for about 30 years but was aware of the sensitivities surrounding aspects of modern biotechnology, especially genetic engineering. He indicated that given the huge investments and tempo of activity attending GE/GMOs today, IDRC’s interest has been stepped up seeking to contribute towards identifying a clear path for the future and explore whatever potentials there may be for sustainable development. It is in this regard that IDRC is embarking on a number of regional consultations on GE/GMOs. Mr. Leppan indicated IDRC’s guiding principles in relation to biotechnology research as including:
• Not perceiving biotechnology as a ‘silver bullet’ •Taking a non-partisan position in the ongoing debate in relation to GE/GMOs • Being driven by southern needs •Taking a pro-poor focus in any IDRC-supported research
Goal and Objectives Dr. Francois Gasengayire and Ms. Julia Ndungu-Skilton introduced the workshop objectives and expected outputs, and led participants through the programme. The primary goal of the meeting was to bring together in one forum, a broad range of stakeholders regardless of their position in the ongoing debate on the potential benefits and risks associated with GE/GMOs, for constructive dialogue in order to enhance understanding on the key issues, and propose a way forward on GE/GMOs for East and Southern Africa (ESA). The specific objectives of the workshop were:
1. To improve awareness and understanding of different stakeholder perspectives in relation to genetic engineering/GMOs 2. To contribute to the current biotechnology debate and its potential benefits and risks in the areas of agriculture, health, and environment 3. To identify major concerns and needs relating to genetic engineering /GMOs as they particularly affect the ESA region 4To identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advance development in the sub-region in relation to agriculture, health and the environment
It was stressed that the principal focus of the meeting was on genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GE/GMOs). However in a number of instances ‘biotechnology’, in its broadest form will be referred to as a way of illustrating the fact that:
(i) Biotechnology consists of a very broad spectrum of tools and approaches, of which GE/ GMOs is only one, and (ii) A number of biotechnology tools, methods or products are already used in development and science, and are generally accepted without controversy.
The programme for the consultation was structured into two main segments: a conference segment of four plenary sessions, and a 2-session segment of working groups. Each of these INTRODUCTION 3 segments lasted a day and a half. The conference segment involved a number of presentations followed by plenary discussions, while the working group segment involved moderated discussions in small groups, to synthesize the issues and concerns, and to identify possible future actions and define research needs that would help resolve controversies and lead to development. Keynote Presentation Agriculture, Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Challenges and Opportunities for Food Security and Environmental Health in sub-Saharan Africa By Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, Regional Director, IPGRI-SSA
Summary The keynote presentation underscored the importance of Africa’s biodiversity to agriculture, health and environment, and juxtaposed it with the present state of food insecurity, poverty and environmental degradation on the continent. This analysis was then related to the potential of biotechnology (with emphasis on GMOs) and to the on-going debate on the benefits and risks associated with Genetic Engineering (GE) and GMO products, that has led to strongly polarized positions on the issue. Dr Atta-Krah analyzed the two scenarios, and related that to the African situation of being caught in-between ‘two elephants’. He observed that Africa could be vulnerable as the continent was negotiating on an empty stomach. His conclusion was that, biotechnology (including GE/GMOs) held a huge potential for Africa’s needs in agriculture, health and the environment but that there were issues of concern on ethical and safety grounds that needed to be addressed. He stressed that dialogue and science needed to go together and cautioned that taking extreme positions either way and refusing to discuss issues across the divide would be counter-productive.
Some highlights of the full presentation are given below: Introduction The three ‘bios’ (biodiversity, biotechnology and biosafety) are all important and significant to agriculture. They are also inter-related and need to be assessed and developed in an integrated fashion. They also have certain peculiar challenges and opportunities, which need to be managed and exploited in a sustainable manner to support food security, poverty alleviation and the protection of the environment. Biodiversity represents the diversity of life forms on earth. It entails the species richness of the ecosystem, the structure of their populations, their interrelationships and interactions with their habitats. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993) defines biotechnology as “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.” Viewed in this broad context, biotechnology”encompasses a huge range of activities, ranging from the age-old practice that includes the use of microorganisms in processes such as fermentation in the brewery and baking industries, to genetic modification or transformation of the modern era. Each biotechnology application may have its own set of risks and opportunities. Biodiversity within agriculture (agrobiodiversity) is seen as the foundation for sustainability of agriculture, and provides the building blocks for genetic enhancement of plants and livestock in agriculture. It comprises those elements at all levels of the biological hierarchy, from genes to ecosystems, involved in agriculture and food production. Thus, agricultural biodiversity includes all crops and livestock, and all interacting species of pollinators, symbionts, pests, parasites, predators and competitors. The central challenge to ensure the fullest contribution of agricultural biodiversity to sustainable development has three interconnected elements. The first is recognizing the contribution that agricultural biodiversity makes to livelihoods (especially for the rural poor) 4 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT and determining how to support and integrate diversity maintenance more fully into agricultural production. The second is understanding the contribution that diversity makes to healthy agro-ecosystem function and identifying the key aspects of diversity management that can support this. The third element requires that this understanding of the contribution of agricultural biodiversity to sustainable development is integrated into national and international development policies. Research is required in all these three areas, to ensure that agricultural biodiversity is optimally managed and used in support of food security for present and future generations. The research challenge will be concerned with identifying when and in what ways diversity makes key contributions to sustainable production in regard to these three elements.
Research issues and concerns Renewed emphasis is needed on research aimed at addressing food security and sustainable livelihood issues, with a strong development orientation. This will require taking integrated approaches, with strong and strategic partnerships across key stakeholder groups. The areas of research that would require attention in this strategic area could include the following: • Identification and characterization of particular African food resources, of known and potential value, especially in rural and indigenous communities • Laboratory analyses of nutrient, functional and safety properties of the selected plants and foods • On-farm and community-based activities, aimed at improvement of household nutritional status, and the linkage of farmer diversity preferences to nutrition and health • Policy and awareness creation.
The rapid advancement made in molecular genetics has increased awareness on biotechnology, and has fueled the current misconception in some quarters towards seeing ‘biotechnology’ as one and the same with ‘GMO technology’. A growing coalition of dissenting voices, including farmers, citizens’ groups, scientists and ordinary consumers in many countries are becoming vociferous in warning of possible dangers from GM crops and the need for caution - at least in their introduction. The basis of their concerns ranges from challenges to the scientific assumptions of the technologies, through suspicions on the motivations of the biotechnology industry, to arguments that such meddling with the genetic make up of plants may have hidden dangers for human health and the environment. Some also contend on religious and cultural grounds that it is tantamount to ‘playing God’ and therefore is immoral or sacrilegious. There are concerns about the long-term effects of crops with built-in pesticide properties, one possible effect being the appearance of Bt-resistant insect pests. It is feared that engineered genes - such as genes for resistance to weed killers - could transfer from crops to wild plants, giving them competitive advantage and turning them into ‘superweeds’ which could pose a threat to wild and cultivated plant populations. Another concern is that plants modified to contain genes from crop disease viruses might exchange these genes with other viruses, generating entirely new viral strains with unpredictable properties. An area also of disquiet is the likely increased loss of biodiversity as a result of the introduction of GM crops. At present, many small farmers in developing countries maintain a rich diversity of plant varieties, and there is uncertainty on how the introduction of GM crops will influence this diversity. It is feared that the promotion of GM crops is likely to increase the tendency of monocropping with a limited range of genetically uniform commercial varieties. If the local varieties around the world are lost as a result of the spread of commercial varieties, the range of genes available to feed the world will be drastically reduced in the process of genetic erosion. Finally, critics are alarmed that genetic engineering is being developed and promoted primarily by private corporations, and that with recent consolidations in the ‘life industry’ INTRODUCTION 5 sector, a few giant corporations have control over a large proportion of the germplasm, agricultural processes and distribution systems needed to feed the world. It is essential that countries establish regulatory mechanisms for research and development of biotechnology, especially ion relation to GMOs. Indeed the CGIAR Future Harvest centres have taken the policy position of not doing any genetic modification-related research or use in any country that has not established a regulatory framework. Two essential elements in the regulatory mechanisms for GMOs are Biosafety regulations, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The potential contributions of the broader biotechnological applications for the advancement of conservation and use of plant genetic resources has often escaped the attention of technocrats, development workers, conservationists and the policy makers. To date, there exist several biotechnology applications that are relatively cost-effective, have very low environmental risks and are not subject to Intellectual Property Rights or related regimes. Indeed, most of them are readily available and their protocols are published and are already in the public domain and are being actively used in research. In most developing countries, however, there is a general lack of awareness at all levels, on the potential of biotechnology. This is particularly serious at the policy makers’ level, as it does influence the release of resources for the promotion of the technology. This needs to be addressed. Although the expertise and infrastructural developments in molecular biotechnology are still in their infancy stages in developing countries and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, many countries in this region are getting interested in application of the tools in the field of agriculture. The major limitation has been capacity and funding. It is hoped that Africa’s friends will come to the aid of the continent, along with African countries and sub-regional groupings, to provide some funding and leadership to this effort, for sustained improvements in food security and poverty alleviation in the continent. 6 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Opening Session Presentations
Opening Remarks By Professor Ratemo Michieka, Director General, NEMA
At the Regional consultations on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for development in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) from 20 to 22 September 2004 at Nairobi Safari Club, Nairobi, Kenya.
Representatives of IDRC and IPGRI, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me take this opportunity to thank the organizers for giving me a chance to make some opening remarks and also chair this first session of the consultations. On my behalf and that of NEMA and the Government of Kenya I wish to extend our warm welcome to all participants from outside Kenya and wish you a wonderful stay in this country.
Ladies and Gentlemen, We are gathered here for the next three days to share our experience on a very important topic that is gaining a lot of prominence in International, Regional and National sustainable development debate. Genetic Engineering and its products is generating a lot of public debate all over the world. Biotechnology as a practice is not entirely new to human development. Human kind has since creation used biotechnology practice to improve his/her welfare. Throughout history man has continuously selected plants and animals from the wild and added them into his sources of food. Farmers throughout the world have continuously selected crops and animals for favorable traits using their traditional knowledge. Later development in science introduced technologies such as tissue culture and embryo transfer to speed up the process of selection and improvement of crop and animal varieties.
Distinguished Participants, Further advances in science in recent years has seen the entry into the scene genetic engineering. This technology enables scientists to select genes or parts of gene with desirable characteristics and move them within and across genomes thus creating transgenic crops, animals and products. This technology is now increasing being applied in Agriculture, Human health and the environment in different parts of the world. Application of the technology has raised a lot of debate because while its potential contribution to agriculture, human, health and the environment are recognized, there are potential risks associated with it that raise concern.
Ladies and Gentlemen, As it is today, there seems to be quickly developing two opposing schools of thought, one promoting and the other opposed to its application. This status has been fuelled by the way the two sides of the debate conduct their debates. Each side seems to promote its side of the debate in isolation. There are very few fora which bring the two sides to discuss the issues together. This has tended to widen the gap left between the two. This has left the general public in a state of confusion. It is for this reason I commend the organizers of this forum for making all efforts to bring together participants from different points of view and give them an opportunity to share their experiences and concerns. OPENING SESSION PRESENTATIONS 7
Distinguished Participants, My hope is that you will discuss the issues proposed into the programme thoroughly and openly to ensure that our region approaches genetic engineering from an informed point of view that is home grown. In conclusion I wish to once again thank the organizers for inviting me and I wish you all a fruitful discussion.
Thank you. 8 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
The Conference Segment
Fifteen paper presentations were made, in which the presenters shared their views on the role of biotechnology/GMOs in agriculture, health and environment, and the related challenges, barriers and issues. The full text of the papers and detailed recommendations will be published in the Proceedings of the Consultation. This synthesis report presents the main outcomes of the meeting including the issues raised, the main elements of the discussion and recommendations. A summary of the various sessions is given below: Session 2: Setting the Stage - Biotechnology and Development
Three key presentations formed the basis of discussion in this session. The papers were chosen to reflect the range of perspectives on GE/GMOs with a focus on the agricultural aspects of development in Africa. The papers presented (in Ms PowerPoint) were:
1. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Beyond the War of Words by Terri Raney, FAO 2. GMOs in Agriculture: Needs and Alternatives by Hans Herren, ICIPE 3. Why Africa Should Reject GE Crops: The Real Issues by Zachary Makanya, PELUM-Kenya
The views of the presenters were fairly representative of the various positions in the ongoing debate. The first paper was largely based on the FAO Report—The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? Noting the gains attributed to genetically modified crops, such as reduced use of pesticides, increase in agricultural production and profits especially experienced in China, and the lack of evidence of allergic and toxic effects, the paper found nothing to warrant a total ban on genetic modification/genetic engineering. The presenter noted that most of the constraints affected all kinds of technology and were not GMO-specific. The author recommended that genetic modification/genetic engineering should be allowed to complement other research such as plant breeding and IPM. Taking a more cautious position, the second presenter cautioned against a ‘sledgehammer approach’ in which GE/GMOs are seen as the main answer for dealing with the problems facing agriculture and health. He felt that there are several alternative options to GE/GMOs that were not being seriously supported, while over-whelming emphasis appears to be going towards supporting GMOs (especially by the private sector). He preferred to treat GE as one tool among many in a toolbox. Observing that many factors work together to cause food insecurity in Africa the paper suggested that toolmakers should also work together to find integrated solutions that could avoid the risks associated with GMOs. The author noted that GMO technology was in its infancy and too little research and risk assessment had been done on it. It could have potential benefits but it also had threats and risks, which need to be taken into consideration, before rushing the technology out as a panacea for everything. The third paper was of the view that GMOs should not be accepted for African agriculture. The author asked searching questions regarding the fate of seed saving by the small-scale farmer, the prohibitive cost of GE seeds, the suspect rush to get African countries to accept this technology, the effect on biodiversity and the general consequences to human health and the environment.
Key issues raised during discussion of above papers: • There was a general appreciation of the fact that although they held varied positions on the technology the speakers were balanced in their expressions. It was observed that this set a good atmosphere for dialogue. • The issue of Africa having to “negotiate on an empty stomach” was raised. The question was: ‘what should Africa do under such circumstances?’ The recommendation was that THE CONFERENCE SEGMENT 9
in any negotiations African policymakers should try as much as possible to look beyond the current situation of hunger, and address what is the best long-term interest of the continent. • There was concern that genetic modification/genetic engineering reduced the options and choices available to the African farmer. It was decided that this issue would require further analysis and clarification. • Resistance and resilience of ecosystems was discussed and clarified. It was explained that it is easier to damage a system with low resistance—the potential to withstand damage. Resilience is the ability of the system to recover from shock or damage. It was underscored that a damaged system is normally more difficult and expensive to restore. Sometimes one may never be able to restore the damaged system to its original status. • There was concern that there was not enough and properly researched consumer information available in relation to GMOs. Although some independent risk assessment research had been done, the long-term effects of GMOs in agriculture, health and the environment remained largely unknown. • The fate of the small-scale farmer was also discussed as their special needs appeared to be marginalized or unattended as appeared to be the case in the FAO report. There was need to target not only farmer problems but also the main food crops of African importance such as maize and bananas. There is need to move from general talk to talking about individual or particular GM crops. • It was observed that terminator technology, transgenic plants, and gene flow carried risks that needed to be researched. 10 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Session 3: GMOs for Development - The Potential Scenarios in Agriculture and Human Health
This session was designed to further argue the case for GE/GMOs, by highlighting positive aspects of the technology, as seen from different technology experiences. Four papers, listed below, were presented (in Ms PowerPoint) in the session.
1. Biotechnology and Human Development: Health, Agriculture and Environment Aspects by Dr Mpoko Bokanga, AATF 2. Progress and Constraints with the Development of GM Fruit Crops at the Agricultural Research Council, Stellenbosch by Dr Hennie du Plessis, ARC, South Africa 3. GM Crops and Poverty: The Case of Bt Maize in Kenya by Dr Hugo De Groote (CIMMYT) 4. Biotechnology in Human Health Care: GMOs and Other Innovations by Dr Thomas Egwang (Med. Biotech Labs, Kampala, Uganda)
The presenters came from a cross-section of scientific institutions and organizations— international, national and parastatal. All the presenters underscored the great opportunities inherent in GE/GMOs, and the need to research and respond to the specific needs of the African small-scale farmers. Recounting the history of biotechnology, the first presentation made three major observations: first, that cultural and ethical issues, food and environmental safety and the suspect role of multinational corporations dominated the biotechnology debate; second that the application of biotechnology in medicine and industry had not attracted as much controversy as it had done in agriculture; and third, that the debate of the effects on the environment was largely speculative. In relation to food safety the author stressed the need for adequate labeling of GM products, but stressed that genetic engineering was an important technology that needed to be explored and exploited for development in Africa. The second presentation outlined the ongoing GE experiments at the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in South Africa. ARC was working on GMOs with fruit crops as a way to combat disease resistance experienced with conventional fruit production techniques. It was reported that ARC has developed single cell regeneration techniques. Gene cloning work was reported to be going on with different genes being used to produce transgenic fruits. Experiments with cloned apples and strawberries had successfully reached the stage of greenhouse and field trials but still faced constraints related to long vegetative and reproductive cycles of fruit trees, species and variety diversity, regulatory approval, finance and negative publicity. It was pointed out that support for agricultural research was declining and that access to technology was increasingly hindered by IPR related issues. There was therefore need for IPR regimes and institutions to provide technology stewardship. As background, the third presenter informed the participants that statistics indicated a falling cereal yield for Africa. Bt maize was therefore projected as a technology that held great potential for the control of maize stemborers. It was reported that CIMMYT and KARI had been working on a 5-year project on developing insect resistant maize for Africa, as a way of combating the serious pest problems particularly in low potential areas that experienced both drought and pests. It was, however, pointed out that the control was so far good on Chilo and not Busseola. In relation to toxicity and allergies Bt maize was reported to be no different from other maize. Bt maize was even better in storage as it was less affected by fungal infections—it had much lower aflatoxin levels. Its risks included possible development of resistance in the target insects and possible gene flow into wild relatives of maize. The fourth presentation highlighted the great potential of biotechnology (including genetic engineering) for human health. It demonstrated how biotechnology could be used to improve the nutritional content of foods, create bioreactors for pharmaceutical industry and engineer vaccines against diseases. Risks associated with the technology included microbial contamination, integration into the human genome, allergy and auto-antibodies. The meeting THE CONFERENCE SEGMENT 11 was informed that in Uganda biotechnology application had been accepted officially and already there had been gains through agro-based genetic modification/genetic engineering. However there was still a general lack of awareness among the population. He called upon scientists to strengthen public awareness about this GE technology that is said to hold the potential to break the ‘diseases of poverty’—HIV/AIDS, Malaria and TB. Key issues raised during discussion of the above papers:
• Concentrating only on the bad side of genetic engineering/GMOs would jeopardize the exploitation of its good side. For instance, nuclear technology could be used to create devastating bombs but at the same time that technology is also positively exploited in X-ray and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). It is therefore risky to advocate for total rejection of the technology. GE needs to be seen in the same light. • Assessment of a technology should be done in the ecology where it will be used, and not limited to the laboratory. If laboratory-based results are generalized, scenarios such as was experienced in the case of the Monarch butterfly may arise. In the case of the development of Monarch butterfly, the scientists did not adequately relate the research to the fields and natural ecology. Details on the Monarch butterfly can be found at the website: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/monarch-Bt-ISB.htm • There was extensive discussion on the issues of regulatory regimes as a constraint. Issues of who owns what, marketing, the cumbersomeness and costliness of the processes in IPR were highlighted as issues that would challenge the resource-poor farmer. • African countries were urged to apply the precautionary principle appropriately to protect their interest. The key question could be, ‘how can we access and use agricultural technologies to solve our problems?’ rather than a blanket judgment on whether the technology is good or bad. Africa should not allow western debate to slow down the application of GE/GMOs in solving Africa’s problems. • Concern was expressed that scientists do not normally listen to the views of the common man in connection with GE/GMOs. It was clarified that if proper legal and regulatory infrastructures and channels were put into place highlighting the roles of the community, etc., scientists would have little choice but to listen. • Communities would need to be involved in the ongoing discussions on GE/GMOs. This would call for the demystification of the language, as science is not for scientists alone. If scientists look down upon those who ask questions then they are not good scientists. It is important for the scientist to explain what they are doing to the layman who pays for the science through tax. • Scientists would need to create awareness through public debate and discussions with different stakeholders and through a concerted programme for building public knowledge and confidence in relation to GE/GMOs. • An important thing noted from the research going on in was that GE is a very expensive technology. This has caused a divide between North and South as between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Africa’s development partners would need to assist to bridge this divide, through collaboration and other means. Perhaps the large sums devoted to GE research could be used to greater and more useful effect in other areas of agricultural research. 12 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Session 4: Alternative Viewpoints on GMOs - Risks and Concern Perspectives
The two principal papers in this session were selected to provide further information and evidence on the potential risks and negative aspects of GE/GMOs. The session was intended to provide further space for the voicing of concerns and the expression of alternative viewpoints in relation to GE/GMOs. The outcome of a pre-workshop electronic questionnaire survey that was done on the issues of GE/GMOs and development was also presented during this session. The papers presented (in Ms PowerPoint) for the session were:
1. Sustainable Approaches to Agricultural Development and Farmers Perspectives on GMOs in Tanzania by Ms Salome Luhasi, ENVIROCARE 2. South Africa: What Africa Can Learn from Seven Years of Growing GE Crops by Ms Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, Biowatch-South Africa 3. Report of an IDRC/IPGRI Pre-Workshop Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa by Dr Christopher K. Ngichabe, ASARECA
The first paper highlighted the importance and potential of organic farming and low-external input-agriculture, such as use of botanicals to control pests and diseases, green manuring, composting of plant and animal wastes, maintaining diversity of plants and animals and linking between producers and processors, as alternative pathways to GE/GMOs. There was concern over the potential loss of the small-scale farmers’ right to save, use and exchange their seeds, through introduction and adoption of GE/GMOs. It was pointed out that GE could not address issues of food security related to problems of HIV/AIDS, climatic variations and natural calamities. The second presentation raised concerns about South Africa’s experience with GE/GMOs, based largely based on the Makhathini Bt cotton experience. The presenter questioned the reliability of data indicating that there was a 30% increase in yields and a significant reduction in pesticide use, as the source of the data was said to come from the multinational, Monsanto. The author warned of the danger of trying to extrapolate data from cotton to prove that Africa needs GE. It was clear that GE reduces the farmers’ options and yet does not address the farmers’ priority problems such as lack of access to credit, and climatic hazards. Farmers also still have to use pesticides for other pests. Data from the author revealed that the reduction in the use of pesticides was so slight that farmers had been left in debt and that many had refused to continue with the GM cotton. The last paper of the session was a report on the pre-workshop survey conducted to obtain inputs from a cross section of stakeholders, including some participants at the workshop. Two hundred and fifty individuals were served with a questionnaire and 80 responded. Poverty, food insecurity and poor human health were identified as the most significant challenges in ESA. It was noted that just to assess one product it would cost about US$40000. The majority of respondents reckoned that the technology has a role to play but recommended that countries should put in place measures to address associated risks. They were, however, concerned that GE was driven by multinationals for profits and not meant for small farmers. Food-safety issues and conservation of biodiversity were raised as other major concerns that needed to be addressed. Researchable needs on GE/GMOs identified included: food-safety, environmental impacts, abiotic and biotic stress for agricultural productivity, drugs, vaccines and diagnostics, agro-processing, biosafety and IPR framework. The following were issues and concerns that came up in the ensuing discussion: • The farmers’ right to save, use and exchange seeds as a cornerstone of subsistence agriculture was highlighted. GE was seen as a threat to farmers’ rights. GE seeds are too expensive and big companies tend to become monopolies. THE CONFERENCE SEGMENT 13
•Organic farming is useful but is a slow reaction to Africa’s urgent problems. Today it cannot produce enough food for Africa. However, it is a sustainable way for long-term food security. • It was pointed out that FAO data on performance of GM crops did not reflect the last three seasons affected by drought. It was revealed that Biowatch had data, showing that GE crops fared very badly under environmental stress, compared to non-GE alternatives. This data would be published in October 2004. • Questions were raised on the practicality and feasibility of some of the alternative pathways proposed. There was fear that the use of botanicals to control pests and diseases may not be sustainable. Participants also lamented the prohibitive costs of organically grown products. It was explained that the high inspection and certification charges levied by external agencies made the organic products expensive. However, in Tanzania, standards for organic products were reported to be in place and TANCERT (Tanzania Certification Association) had been legally registered and would be officially launched in October 2004. Local inspectors have been trained, and certify products at lower cost. • Bt is vulnerable to climatic stresses. Bt cotton farmers still use pesticides for other pests. Since cotton is a cash crop, its data could not be extrapolated to food crops to prove that Africa needs GE. It was recalled that the Roundup Ready (RR) Soya in Argentina led to concentration of land and capital, replacement of local crops and loss of food security. • It was observed that South African farmers do not have enough information and often sign contracts they do not understand. Knowledge privatization was also identified as a big issue. Two studies in SA on pollination and insect resistance, funded by Monsanto – had not published their data or given public access to this data. It was also revealed that decisions to give official government permits were based on company risk assessment data. 14 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Session 5: Policy Issues and Concerns – Biosafety and IPRs
This session was devoted to reviewing some of the policy and legislation aspects and instruments with relevance for GE/GMO development, testing, use or regulation. Special emphasis was given to the issues of biosafety and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Four papers were presented (in Ms PowerPoint) in this session:
1. The role of UNEP in developing country-owned National Biosafety Frameworks in Africa (Capacity Building Activities) by Dr Charles Gbedemah 2. National biosafety policies in sub-Saharan Africa: key drivers and outstanding issues for action by Mr Ronald Naluwairo 3. ISD’s role in creating awareness of the challenges of biosafety among critical stakeholders in Africa by Dr Dereje Gebre Michael 4. Implications of IPR protection on acquisition, development and applications of biotechnology for the African farmer by Dr Patricia Kameri-Mbote
The first presentation was based on the experience of UNEP/GEF in capacity building for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). Participants were informed that CPB went into force on 11 September 2003 with 107 parties. It was underscored that the idea of CPB was to embrace the benefits but at the same time ensure adequate safety. The role of GEF is to assist countries to prepare for the implementation of CPB in their local contexts by designing National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs), assist in their implementation and establishment of infrastructure for the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH). The second presentation noted that African countries were at different stages of biosafety policy development, and that the speed of development depended much on whether a country is reactionary or proactive or whether it is just jumping on the bandwagon or succumbing to pressure from networks. The author identified four outstanding issues relating to NBFs in sub- Saharan Africa. These were: resolving the policy question of legislative approach to biosafety, redefining the scope of national biosafety policies to focus on LMOs/GMOs, scaling up public participation and encouraging African countries to be innovators and not mere users of the technology. The third presenter informed the participants that the major involvement of the Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD) with biosafety was in the advocacy that led to a collective African decision in June 2003 to endorse Africa-wide capacity building in biosafety in order to strengthen the abilities of AU Member States to deal with biosafety issues. They recommended that the awareness campaign should continue among all stakeholders on issues of biotechnology especially GE and its regulations. The last presenter, a lawyer and academician, drew scenarios that demonstrated the dilemma of the African small-scale farmer and traditional healer in the face of IPR. She guided the participants through the various forms of IPRs and related international protocols referring to the complex picture as the ‘global IPR maze.’ She stressed the need for regional and national regimes to protect individuals and communities of farmers. During discussion the following issues and concerns were raised:
• The participants noted that a multiplicity of regulatory and legal regimes and instruments existed but that there was little overall coherence. They observed that this is likely to cause confusion at country level. Such protocols included the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety etc. • It was the shared view that there was need to develop regional and national regimes in sub-Saharan Africa. Under the umbrella of instruments endorsed at the international level, each country would need to address its national issues and craft suitable legal, THE CONFERENCE SEGMENT 15
regulatory and property rights framework. Also required was the development of sui generis legislation on ownership, control and access. • There was general agreement to the need for communication at all levels—the level of the scientists, the policy level and at the community level. It was repeatedly emphasized that there was need to inform the public and to harvest the voices of the communities and do all in a gender sensitive mode. 16 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Workshop Segment (Working Groups)
The overall goal of the working group segment was to enable further discussion on the key issues, addressed from different perspectives, and to clarify the GE/GMO debate as it relates to development problems within the ESA region. The working groups were also to identify possible avenues for work on GE/GMOs and recommend priority areas for research, capacity building, and the way forward. Three working groups were created to specifically represent three different viewpoints related to GE/GMOs. The position of each working group was defined by a hypothesis as given below:
Hypothesis for Working Group I: GE/GMO is a positive technology, and can contribute effectively towards development in Africa, given the reality of constraints within the region. The working group was asked to consider the potential benefits and challenges of GE/ GMOs for sustainable development in the ESA region.
Hypothesis for Working Group II: GE/GMO’s is a risky option; they are not necessarily the most cost effective, relevant or safe pathway for future development given the reality of constraints we are faced with in this region. The working group was to analyze perceived risks and uncertainties in the use of GMOs, and consider alternative pathways for development.
Hypothesis for Working Group III: Neither GMO’s nor any other technological innovation addressing problems at community level will work unless the necessary socio cultural & policy environment is created and taken into consideration. This Working Group was to consider socio-cultural/economic and policy environment issues and processes that would need to be considered along with the debate on suitability (or not) of GE/GMOs. Each Working Group addressed the following issues in relation to their hypothesis:
i. Identify the key issues that strengthen the hypothesis for the group with respect to agriculture, health & environment ii. Identify specific risks or concerns that need to be considered in the further development (if at all) of GE/GMO technology iii. Identify potential barriers/challenges that could be faced concerning realization of the hypothesis iv. Suggest research & capacity building questions that need to be addressed in relation to the hypothesis and the technology(ies) v. Suggest an action plan for moving the process forward for the achievement of the essence of the hypothesis (what actions are needed to address specific areas and issues suggested?)
The following is a group-by-group summary report of the key issues that were considered, suggested research and capacity building and recommendations for the way forward.
Working Group I – Potential Benefits and Challenges of GE/GMOs for Sustainable Development in the ESA Region
Potential Benefits To strengthen its hypothesis the group thought of the potential of GE/GMOs to produce drought and pest resistant crops as well as nutritionally enriched varieties. This would be a welcome answer to the low productivity in African agriculture, recurrent droughts, and widespread pests and disease vectors. It could bring marginal lands into productivity. It would also reduce WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 17 the widespread use of pesticides. The application of GE/GMOs additionally has the potential to forge a closer link between agriculture and industry. Modern biotechnology would also make possible the creation of GE vaccines to deal with such pandemics as Malaria and HIV/ AIDS. The group listed the following examples of GE successes in agriculture, human and animal health, the environment and industry, referring to them as “the niche for GE innovation for Africa.” • Success cases in agriculture • Bt cotton (China, India, South Africa, USA) • Bt Soya (Argentina, Brazil, USA, China) • Herbicides resistant crops • Ring spot virus resistant papaya in Hawaii and Philippines • Long shelf life tomatoes • Sterile crops, not able to improve in any other way, e.g. the narrow genetic base of bananas can be improved through GE • Faster and precision breeding • Powerful tool for knock-outs and knock-ins to generate desirable traits •Traits controlled by many genes e.g. corn borer and drought resistance are difficult to fix with conventional methods. This has been achieved by GE in Bt maize and weather guard for maize currently being evaluated • Use of GE to add value to products
• Success cases in human and animal health • rDNA insulin for diabetes, factor V for haemophiliacs, stem cells for bone marrow cancers, etc. • Increase levels of antioxidants against cancer •Efficient and cost-effective vaccines without the need for cold chain and long distance transportation • Bio-farming/pharming using crops and animals to produce drugs and vaccines
• Success cases in environmental care • Bio-remediation (GE bacteria cleaning up oil spills) • Extraction of heavy metals from the soil • Bio-degradable plastics to produce bio-fertilizers • No tillage (thus controlling soil erosion and needing less labour) • High yields per unit area of land thus protecting agricultural land use expansion • Less agrochemical use hence reduced environmental pollution • Sterile pollen prevents gene flow •Provides an opportunity of cloning to preserve endangered species of biodiversity
• Success cases in industry • Use of recombinant microorganisms in agro-processing and fermentation processes • Plastics for use in health services, and a whole range of applications (www.csisro) in Australia
Risks and concerns that need to be addressed for further development of GE/ GMOs The discussion of risks and concerns and challenges centred on the following risks and constraints:
1. IPRs – power and control The group observed that 99% of patents related to GE/GMOs belonged to foreign multinationals that dominate the market and R&D. The farmer has to pay expensive licensing fees. As control 18 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT is externalized there is less food sovereignty and food security. Farmer’s options are reduced, as their seed variety is depleted sometimes through biopiracy. There is inadequate regional and local regulatory framework and instruments in Africa to respond to the international and global protocols.
2. Loss of Biodiversity in Agriculture There was fear of gene flow to and cross-pollination of indigenous plants, and farmers’ varieties that could contaminate important plants and crops such as wheat, coffee and sorghum. There would be reduction in diversity, increase in genetic erosion and loss of local varieties of seeds and knowledge. The group also had fears over the possible impact on non-targets.
3. Food and Environmental Safety Recognition was also given to the inadequacy of research on safety aspects of GE/GMOs and its products especially in agriculture. The digestibility, toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional aspects of GE/GMO products have not been adequately assessed. It would be imprudent to just extrapolate US and EU data because Africa has peculiar health and environmental issues. There are health risks possible through horizontal gene transfer, CaMV and new proteins reacting with other proteins. There was also fear of the evolution of antibiotic resistant genes and resistance to GE crops. A need was felt for more targeted research on these issues in Africa, in order to reassure the population of the safety of the technology for food and the environment.
4. Human and Technical Capacity Sub-Saharan Africa has inadequate technology extension and transfer systems. There is not enough capacity for risk assessment of long-term and often even short-term effects of GE/GMOs. Dependency on data from other environments is risky. Few countries have prioritized capacity building and developed a strategic plan on GE/GMOs. There is a shortage of leadership capacity to take initiative as well as a dearth of scientists to undertake GE research. This was seen as a major part of the environment of mistrust, fear and misinformation that had been created.
Potential barriers/challenges The group came up with the following matrix of challenges to GE/GMOs and strategies proposed to address the challenges.
S/N Barrier/Challenge Strategy
1 Lack of public Programmes to disseminate information on a large scale, including awareness educational programmes in universities and schools 2Inadequate or lack of (i) Development of effective regulatory and legal frameworks, regulation and legal policies, and strategic plans using among others the AU model frameworks, policy law as resources and strategies (ii) Capacity building in development and implementation of the effective regulatory frameworks, appropriate policies and strategic plans 3. Lack human resource (i) Training to build a critical mass of expertise along the production capacities to undertake to market continuum (R&D) (fellowships, research base trainings, R&D in GE sabbaticals) (ii) GE curriculum included in educational systems in the region (iii) Training for entrepreneurship 4 Lack of physical (i) Provision of necessary equipment and facilities for GE research infrastructure for GE (ii) Establishment of strategic Centers of Excellence in the regions research (iii) Capacity building for maintenance and equipment WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 19
5Inadequate networking (i) Establishment of data bases for experts, infrastructure, and research in the region (ii) Development of websites (iii) Establishment of regional newsletters (iv) Broad band connectivity 6 Lack of funds to (i) Lobby governments to invest for R&D to at least 1% GDP undertake research (ii) Capacity building in craftsmanship within the region (iii) Lobby private sector and development partners to support R&D (iv) Provision of policy environment for venture capitals to stimulate entrepreneurship 7Negative perception (i) Capacity building to sieve and package balanced information for about GE different segments of society (ii) Establishment of an information centre to provide balanced information and manage propaganda (iii) Conduct surveys to establish GE perceptions (iv) Public lecture sand round table discussions 8Intellectual Property (i) Capacity building for all stakeholders to raise awareness on IPR Rights (IPR) policies matters and arrangements (ii) Capacity building to negotiate for IP for freedom to operate under licensing arrangements (iii) Encourage government public funded research (iv) Capacity build the communities to negotiate for access benefit sharing (ABS) for their Indigenous knowledge (IK) and genetic resources (v) Lobby governments to enact appropriate national IP policies (vi) Get into partnerships with brokers such as AATF, ISAAA 9Inadequate (i) Private extension services technology extension (ii) Capacity building in technology transfer and transfer systems (iii) Develop innovative private-public partnerships (iv) Establishment of science parks (technology incubation systems) to catalyse commercialisation of technologies (v) Science fairs and field days
Research and capacity building questions/issues Before the group itemized its research questions they suggested the following as guiding principles for research:
• Use of participatory methodologies for research • Multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder involvement (including farmers and communities) • Information used must be independent, verifiable and transparent, and not influenced by positions of the funding parties. Conflict of interest must be avoided in such research. • There ought to be material transfer agreements (MTAs) between researchers and the communities, to take care of farmers’ rights and benefit sharing. • Good governance and transparency
Some specific areas/issues in which research action is required are given below:
(i) Farmer needs assessment and needs-based research GE/GMO research must focus on priority farmer needs. Research opportunities must be linked with farmers; only after extensive consultation can one make a list of what their needs are. People trained to work with farmers should extract research questions from farmers and translate them 20 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
for the GE/GMO scientists. Such research should, however, cover the three major sectors—agriculture, health and environment.
(ii) Research to develop a set of criteria and indicators to evaluate appropriateness, impact on environment and food security
(iii)Improvement of productivity Research geared at improving productivity in agriculture would need to include: • Research aimed at overcoming the biotic and abiotic constraints • Pest and disease resistance •Drought-tolerance •Tolerance to poor soils, etc. • Research on indigenous crops in Africa to improve yields • Identification of specific areas where GE could remove constraints to productivity with a competitive advantage to conventional techniques
(iv)Research related to health and medicine • Phytochemical screening of medicinal properties of indigenous plants • Use of rDNA for diagnostic, therapeutics and vaccine development
(v) Socio-economic research • Cost-benefit studies to compare GE and other conventional options • Surveys to establish GE perceptions
Capacity building questions and issues The following capacity building issues were identified for strengthening capacities and expertise in the region: • Conduct a needs assessment on capacity building, and build inventory of what exists and what is needed •Create a critical mass of scientists in biotechnology, microbiology, entomology, ecology, and in multidisciplinary research approaches involving these specific areas of expertise • Set up and/or strengthen regional plant genetic resource centres (also animal genetic resource centres/banks) •Train a core team of lawyers to assist in dealing with IPR issues and policy including the AU model laws on biosafety and community rights • Networking capacity, both vertical and horizontal needs to be built •Organize other stakeholder fora in the region • Support institutional capacity development - Biosafety infrastructure, biocontainment facilities, centers of excellence, maintenance and servicing of equipment, etc. • Support technology transfer mechanisms related to GE/GMOs • Encourage entrepreneurship • Establishment of an information center to provide balanced information, to sieve and repackage for the different segments of society
Action plan The following were identified as the major projects that should be undertaken in ESA countries.
1. Awareness Programme Monitor and enhance the circulation of information on GE/GMOs. The information should be appropriate, verified and tailored to the various target groups including policy makers, farmers and the general public. Organize science fairs and field days and establish regional newsletters, broadband connectivity and websites. WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 21
2. Stocktaking and Inventory of Resources As priority survey, characterize and record local genetic resources in database. It is important to know what is available before doing impact studies of new GMOs. Wild relatives should be included in the inventory. Stocktaking should include evaluation of the nutritional value of indigenous crops and phytochemical screening of medicinal properties of local plants. A biotech information centre should be set up to coordinate such activities.
3. Comparative study on GE and conventional methods, research of cost benefit analysis, local appropriateness, nutritional value. Research on where problems have occurred – collate research and how to prevent these disasters.
4. Risk and environmental impact assessments Assess and monitor impact on environment, socio-economics. Risk assessments must include economic ethical, social and cultural dimensions. There should be in-depth study of the complex ecosystems in Africa.
5. Public and public involvement Lobby governments and private sector to scale up investment in R&D. Governments should enact appropriate national IP policies and provide an environment that would stimulate entrepreneurship. Get into partnerships with brokers such as AATF and ISAAA and develop private-public partnerships. Establish science parks (technology incubation systems) to catalyze commercialization of technologies.
Working Group II: Alternative Model or Pathway for Development and Analysis of Perceived Risks and Uncertainties in the Use of GMOs
GE/GMOs—not a silver bullet The group expressed concern that so much resources and attention is going into GE/GMO activities, even though the proponents of the technology keep saying that they do not see the technology as a panacea or silver bullet. In support of the hypothesis the group gave examples of the various priority problem areas where GE could, at best, only partially contribute to addressing the problem. GE was seen as an alternative, not mainstream, to the various biotechnologies and other technologies available for agricultural development in Africa. The group also outlined other areas where GE had nothing to offer in addressing problems. African problems to which GE could only offer partial solutions include pests and diseases. Problems to which GE had no answer, and in some cases only aggravates the problems included soil exhaustion, drought, market access, infrastructure, poor scientific capacity and poorly supported NARS and dysfunctional extension systems. Alternative and more cost effective pathways are available to answer such problems. For instance, irrigation is a more effective answer to erratic climates in Africa. Organic farming is a better solution to the problem of soil exhaustion than GE. The cost of GE/GMOs estimated at US$1 million per year per product makes it too costly to be cost-effective in relation to alternative technologies.
Risks and concerns GE/GMOs also come with risks: • Unlike many costly Green Revolution ‘clean ups’ it will not be possible to recall or redress GE contamination. For example: • Starlink has contaminated maize in the USA • In Canada there has been contamination of organic Canola 22 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
•Organic farmers cannot be certified organic if their crops are GE contaminated. This means that the comparative and competitive advantage of many African small-scale farmers is discarded rather than used to build an economically viable future. Even exporters of conventional products have been told they will lose their markets. For example, Baby Corn in Zambia is under threat of being contaminated by GE maize. • GE is likely to cause loss of the valued tradition of seed saving and exchange, which the small-scale farmers in Africa see as a right • GE may destroy the mode of production that sustains over 70% of the small-scale farmers in Africa • Long-term health risks of GE products are largely unknown • Loss of biodiversity/increased monoculture/fewer varieties • Seed security erosion • Gene-flow contamination • Market monopolies leading to loss of food sovereignty • Displacement of small farmers • Antibiotic resistance (marker genes) • It is a high cost technology that jeopardizes poverty alleviation and other higher priorities • The possibility of balancing economic, environmental and social bottom lines is reduced
Alternatives to GE/GMOs The group felt there were several alternatives to GE/GMOs. However, the problem is that these alternatives are often under-explored, under-exploited and under-funded, thus making them appear ineffective. Some of these potential and existing alternatives were suggested as follows: • Where GE is used to create herbicide tolerant crops, there are non-GE herbicide tolerance technologies. For instance: • Conventional plant breeding, biological control and mechanical control could be used • Desmodium could be used to control Striga in maize • In crop improvement, non-GM breeding techniques have already delivered crops that are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides such as oil seed rape tolerant to sulphonylurea herbicides Furthermore, herbicide tolerance is an advantage where herbicides are cheap. But neither are the herbicides cheap nor is their use competitive or suitable when compared to mulching, solarisation and intercropping. • In the case of use of GE for pest resistance, Bt gene gives resistance against stalkborer and bollworm at least in the short run. It is however quite pest specific and may also cause susceptibility to non-target pests. • Perhaps a better alternative would be to return to conventional research into mixed cropping with IPM (including Bt). • In Ethiopian tradition they use fermented cattle urine to control stalkborer while in South Africa chilli powder has been successfully applied against stalkborer. • Where Bt is used, there are less bollworms but more sucking insects, mites and hoppers. Bt controls only certain bollworms. This may be a minor problem in East and Central Africa but it is serious in South Africa. Since Bt is very specific new GE products are needed for each species. Bt loses out when compared with Napier grass and silver leaf, which are more robust, holistic solutions. • In relation to drought resistance, conventional breeding techniques have been successful with crops such as CIMMYT’s drought resistant open pollinated maize. • Also rewarding is the use of drought tolerant crops such as sorghum and millet that are well adapted to the region. • Rainwater harvesting techniques can be employed to use moisture effectively. • In relation to yield potential increases the group observed that yield is a quantitative characteristic and as such very difficult to isolate “a gene”—GE cannot deal effectively WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 23
with quantitative traits. GE only raises production through removing constraints (pests, weeds). More effective alternatives consist of systems that assist in the long term build up of soil fertility and the effective use of moisture and nutrients, crop rotations and mixed cropping systems •With regards to changing the nutritional value, GE has only achieved theoretical success in rice. For instance, it requires 9kg of rice to supply adequate vitamin A. Yet vitamin A is not the only nutrient required. • It would appear that dietary diversity would be a more effective solution to the problem. • Advocacy for the return to nutritious traditional vegetables was also perceived as an easier and cheaper alternative to GE for dealing with nutrition.
Potential barriers and challenges to non-GE strategies and possible solutions The group members pointed out that it was wrong to consider the non-GE approaches as ‘the alternative strategies’. These non-GE approaches are the mainstream and standard approaches. GE strategies were rather the ‘alternative’ approaches. It was, nonetheless, acknowledged that conventional and other mainstream technologies related to agriculture, health, and environment also faced serious challenges and barriers that would need to be addressed. Some of these challenges and suggested answers are: • Lack of adequate human capacity in organics and the extension systems in NARS. This would call for capacity building through training. • There are hardly any comparative quantitative studies comparing GE research to conventional and organic research. The group recommended such comparative quantitative research. • The global regulatory picture was characterized as that of incoherent, unenforced and often non-existent biosafety regulations. Against this picture the group recommended the development of effective biosafety regulations and national frameworks for IPR. • Failure to preserve indigenous knowledge was a major problem. Participants agreed that this called for urgent measures to inventory and preserve indigenous knowledge. • There was concern over distorting subsidies that undermine fair international trade. Proper policies would need to be put in place to protect the local small-scale farmer. As was successfully done in Zambia governments should move to deliberately subsidize the farmer. • The failure of African governments to involve farmers in policy formulation concerned the group. The governments of Africa would need to work out mechanisms of involving both the big and small-scale farmers in the formulation of policy. • It was noted that local communities resisted dietary diversity and depended on a few staples. It was, therefore, recommended that there should be a campaign to increase dietary diversity and its local acceptance. • The general lack of infrastructure including access roads and micro finance was also noted. African governments were urged to improve on the road networks in the rural areas. Farmers should also be given access to easy loans through micro finance. • The group lamented a work force depleted and weakened by pandemics such as HIV/ AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis and rural urban migration. It was stressed that all efforts against these diseases—the preventive including awareness campaigns, GE vaccines and the curative such as the antiretroviral treatment should not be spared. Governments should endeavour to make rural life attractive by providing infrastructure including roads, electricity and water. • The frequent droughts and other climatic distresses were noted. The participants expressed the need to reduce dependence on seasonal rains that may fail and install systems of water drainage and preservation and exploitation of rivers and lakes for irrigation. 24 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Research and capacity building issues 1. State-of-the-art studies indicating what options the small-scale farmer has 2. Scientific evaluation (costs and benefits) of alleged GE successes, e.g. the case of Makhathini Bt cotton This would need a good experimental design to facilitate the investigation of social, environmental and economic results, the subsidies given, and the actual yields. The alternatives being compared should also be clear. 3. There is need for environmental impact assessments for GE 4. Comparative research should be undertaken on how organic farming can feed the world 5. Research is also needed to examine the feasibility of coexistence and whether or not it is possible to maintain GM-free agriculture over time 6. Establishment of agrobiodiversity conservation programmes. This should include processes for: •Testing for the presence of GE/GMOs • Supporting appropriate participatory research and other non-GE biotech approach • Supporting farmer managed plant selection 7. Create farmer networks to facilitate exchange of ideas and promotion of best practices 8. Promotion of biological pest control methods including IPM and natural soil fertility improvement methods 9. Adopt a participatory approach to facilitate capacity building among farmers through such events as field days, food fairs, local radio, agricultural days and farmer workshops 10. Support installation of national regulatory frameworks relating biosafety and IPR 11. Investigate the effectiveness of refugia or buffer zones as a strategy 12. Studies to assess the potential impact of GM crops on cultural liberties in smallholder and indigenous farming communities 13. Study on what current information is available on the non-GM applications of biotechnology (i.e. tissue culture, DNA markers, apoximes, etc) and their potential relevance for smallholder farmers in the South. What is the experience with those non- GM biotech applications over the past two decades?
Action plan Group II identified six major action areas namely market, agrobiodiversity and IPR, soil and pest research, environment, GE regulation and mode of research. The recommended actions for each are as follows. 1. Markets • Steps should be taken to streamline market access—trading system, access to markets and fair trade •Promotion of consumer awareness and education • Research on storage and post-harvest processing for indigenous foods •Product diversification and processing of traditional food crops
2. Agrobiodiversity and IPR • Set up agrobiodiversity conservation programmes •Create or streamline regional and national IPR frameworks in such a way that the farmer’s right to save and exchange seeds is not violated • The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, CBD, and the Cartagena Protocol should be integrated to support the rights of farmers. They all have some provision on farmers’ rights. • National IPR regimes should be put in place and should be friendly especially to the small-scale farmer and biodiversity
3. Soil and Pest Research •Promote soil fertility through such techniques as nitrogen fixation, rhizobium breeding WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 25
and practical use, Azotobacter and a whole range of nitrogen fixers, phosphate availability, nutrient cycling etc. •Promote biological pest control methods, IPM and use of local plants such as the Neem tree, Syringa, Sun Hemp, Velvet and Dolichos beans etc. and undertake local validation of techniques • Comparative research on how organic farming can feed the world •Promotion of IPM among conventional farmers
4. Environment •Transfer of enviro-friendly biotechnology such as bollworm/ stalkborer push & pull methods, and get them out to the farmers • Assessment of impact for GE
5. GE Regulation • Undertake scientific evaluation of Makhathini GE cotton to reveal its social, economic and environmental impact • Investigate the GE myths by looking at the eight areas identified • Assess extent of contamination of local varieties
6. Participatory Approaches • Set up farmers’ networks to facilitate exchange of ideas among small-scale farmers • Facilitate participatory approach and capacity building among small-scale farmers •Organize field days, food fairs, local radios, agricultural show days • Community based extension services • Participatory monitoring and evaluation • Undertake social impact studies
Working Group III: Socio-Cultural/Economic and Policy Environment Issues Related to GE/GMOs
The test is at the community level The group hypothesis was that “Neither GE/GMOs nor any other technological innovation addressing problems at community level will work unless the necessary socio cultural and policy environment is created or taken into consideration.” To advance this hypothesis the group thought of the various priority problem areas that GE and other technological innovations could only partially address or not address at all. The group gave some examples of certain technological innovations that had been rejected because of inadequate consideration of cultural considerations and local community traditions. For instance: • The short sorghum variety was rejected in some communities because it did not offer the long stalks needed for construction of shelters. Also, for those who used fields as toilets the short variety did not offer the needed privacy. • Furthermore the community perception was that a good crop must be tall. • In parts of Zambia and Kenya the long-drop toilet was rejected because sharing such with in-laws is against social and cultural norms. • In Somalia a grinder that is powered by pedaling was rejected because Somali women who were responsible for doing the grinding were forbidden by their culture from pedaling. The group also identified broad socio-cultural and policy issues that strengthened their hypothesis. It was noted that broad barriers to technology acquisition and transfer would impact on GE/GMO and other technology adoption. For instance: • Infrastructure for technology acquisition and diffusion is generally absent for all technologies especially GE. 26 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
• Where extension services are functional, such services are not tailored to GE. • It was also observed that most countries of ESA lacked market and trade infrastructures that could handle the new technologies and their products. • There is inadequate local R and D and regulatory frameworks to handle new technologies especially GE. • Other issues that could militate against new technologies included gender stereotyping, rampant poverty, corruption, bad governance, incongruous land tenure systems, and ethical and religious considerations.
Barriers/challenges to be considered in relation to the enabling environment The group identified the following as barriers, concerns and risks that needed to be considered in the further development of GE/GMOs
• Lack of Markets and Other Infrastructure African markets are inadequate and ill prepared for new products. There is need for new outlets to absorb potential increase in products. Lack of storage facilities, good road networks, transportation, telephone and electricity can be serious setbacks. There is need for socio- economic research to identify needs, and an articulated plan for rural development. • Inadequate Farmer Participation There is no bottom-up approach to technology development and there is a general lack of awareness among the farmers. The general failure of the extension systems in the region has denied the farmer access to information about new technologies. There is need for information and technology repackaging to suit the farmers. Pubic awareness should be a major objective as well as creation of an environment that is conducive to public involvement. • Customary and Cultural Norms and Values Such possible causes of rejection included gender stereotyping, religious issues, and land tenure and land use systems. It would be important therefore to link research to local needs, and to involve the public in technology development and assessment. • Policy Constraints Incoherent and uncoordinated policies and sometimes absence of policy were identified as major barriers to technology adoption and use. Overlapping mandates between different institutions and arms of government often cause confusion and frustration. Lack of well thought out regulatory frameworks including IPR was a continuing problem that had to be tackled. There was need to develop sue generis legislation on ownership, control and access to technology. At the same time proper action should be taken to protect indigenous knowledge. • Poor Governance and Lack of Political Commitment Suggested solutions to this problem included creation of awareness among political and other leaders, lobbying and ensuring that research would be linked to national needs. • Labour constraints Major causes of labour problems in the rural areas are the HIV/AIDS pandemic and rural-urban migration. Not only should the ongoing anti-AIDS campaigns be intensified especially in the rural areas but governments should endeavour to make rural areas attractive too live in. • Concerns over Sustainability, Food Security, Sovereignty and Agrobiodiversity. This would call for the involvement of the local public, linking of technology to local environment and needs and proper assessment of impact before technology development and application. • Inadequate R and D Capacity As an answer, training was recommended at all levels (technical, legal, scientific and social). The group also recommended pooling of resources, networking, establishment of centers of excellence and creation of a conducive work environment. WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 27
Research and capacity building questions/issues The group made the following research and capacity building proposals to address the socio- cultural/economic and policy environment for GE/GMO at the community level
1. Development of Appropriate Sustainable Technologies through public participation and advocacy A. Capacity building on how to carry out participatory research in the following areas • Research on locally available technologies (ITK), socio-cultural norms and values of specific areas • Impact assessment of various technologies on socio-economic, environment, cultural issues • Capacity building on information packaging and communication for specific stakeholders (communities, policymakers and development workers) B. Participatory research on needs assessment at the community and national levels
2. Governance and enabling policy working environment A. Status and gaps in policy environment B. Capacity building on biosafety and IPR at all levels
Action plan 1. Development of Appropriate, Sustainable Technologies through Public Participation and Advocacy
Activities: • Collection of baseline information on the socio-cultural patterns of communities • Needs assessment on the constraints and priority areas in the communities • Assessment of capacities and gaps at the national level • Compilation and analysis of existing strategies and policies that can contribute to solving the identified constraints • Impact assessment by appropriate agencies, prior to the introduction of any technology
2. Governance Activities: •To prepare toolkit on advocacy strategies for appropriate and sustainable technology diffusion • Advocating for appropriate policies for sustainable biodiversity management
3. Capacity Building Activities: •Training on relevant policies and advocacy including but not limited to biodiversity, bio-safety and IPR at all levels •Training on participatory research methodologies and socio-gender analysis • Inventory on capacity building needs • Establishment of centres of excellence for relevant social science research •Creation of awareness through Seminars, workshops and public debates • Sourcing of Research-based information and repackaging the information for dissemination 28 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Conclusion
The Nairobi consultation on GMOs has not been the first one in the region to deliberate on genetic engineering issues and concerns. It is, however, different from the others in that it did not focus on just one dimension of the debate in relation to the technology. The consultation made available a platform to different categories of stakeholders and interest groups to discuss their perspectives and concerns in relation to the GE/GMO technology, and identify possible areas for research. The consultation was not aimed at arriving at consensus on whether or not genetic engineering was good or bad for Africa. What it did was to analyze and present different options and viewpoints and seek to enhance understanding across the various positions. The three hypotheses that were addressed by the three working groups enabled all shades of opinion to be examined and explored. Based on the outcomes of the group analyses, the following general conclusions can be made: • There are very strong opinions held by respective camps in relation to the subject. It will not be easy to change people’s perspectives and position on the issues; however increased dialogue and communication across the various divides can be helpful in bridging the differences and enhancing understanding; • Some common ground was identified. All participants recognized some potential for GMOs in development, albeit to different degrees of certainty and scope. They, however, also recognized that there were certain risks and unknowns associated with the technology; • Participants, however, differed on the issue of “so what?” Whereas some were of the opinion that the risks were manageable and that they should not hold back further development and exploitation of the technology, some others were of the opinion that the risk was too great, especially as it relates to possible irreversible damage to human health and the environment. These others felt that there was no justification for GMOs to be released for use, until further tests proved their safety over the long-term; • Between the two extreme viewpoints, there were also intermediate and mixed perspectives. There were those who felt that the issue of GE/GMOs would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and not to be lumped together as just one issue of good or bad. Expressed also, was the feeling that any assessment of GE/GMOs should not be done until the necessary socio-cultural and policy framework and structures have been addressed, with full considerations given to the rights of communities and farmers; • Biosafety was also perceived quite differently. Whereas some participants saw it as the mechanism for monitoring and managing any possible risk that could arise from use of the technology, others saw it only as a smart way of getting GMOs introduced through the back door. The latter felt that developing countries were not going to have the necessary expertise, skills and funds to adequately monitor the system, and implement any regulatory processes that are developed as part of the biosafety and other policy frameworks; •A number of research and capacity building areas identified by the working groups were found to be common across the groups. Some of the common areas of work proposed were: • Increased focus on farmer situations and farmer-needs considerations in GMO negotiations/discussions and development; • Scientific evaluation on the GMO African ‘success cases’. Such analysis needs to be done in comparison with the best bet non-GMO options; • Research on the effects on agricultural biodiversity and on the issues of introgression and genetic pollution; • Environmental impact assessment; • Further analysis of the seed right issues in relation to smallholder farmers; • Development of national regulatory frameworks relating to biosafety and IPR. CONCLUSION 29
•A number of research and capacity building needs were however specific and dependent on the perspective adopted. • Those who supported hypothesis 1 (in favour of GMOs) put a lot of emphasis on the need to strengthen Africa’s capacity to engage in the science of genetic engineering, and not just to be testing them. They advocated for capacity development at all levels in this regard. The policy and legislation aspects, including issues of Intellectual Property Rights, Access and Benefit Sharing, and capacities in policy analysis and formulation were also listed as essential areas for research and capacity building. They also advocated for the establishment of Centers of Excellence for genetic engineering on the continent. • Participants who supported hypothesis 2 (strong concerns against GMOs), on the other hand, advocated for increased funding for research on the non-GMO alternative systems. They called for more research in targeted conventional breeding for specific conditions; more focus on biological control and integrated pest management; integrated soil fertility management; organic agriculture; supporting agricultural biodiversity and promoting dietary diversity to deal with problems of nutrition and health. They also called for increased resources for research aimed at reducing crop loss through post harvest losses; to improve access of basic materials and resources for smallholder farmers; and to deal with the inequalities in world agriculture and trade created by the incentives and subsidies given to developed country farmers.
Diverse viewpoints were thus presented. Ultimately however, it is believed that the outcomes of the consultation will contribute towards identification of grounds for joint action and for research and capacity building that will promote development and food security in the region. The Communiqué and Declaration: A Communiqué drafted by the workshop organizers in the course of the consultation, was discussed as a reflection of the overall outcomes of the consultation. This communiqué is not intended for showing consensus over the issue of GMOs, but rather simply as a statement of agreements and disagreements in relation to the objectives of the consultation. It needs to be pointed out that a number of participants, after further reflection on the document, asked that their organizations be not associated with the communiqué, for varying reasons. The said organizations are therefore listed at the bottom of the communiqué, which is attached as an Appendix to this report. 30 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Appendix 1
Declaration and Communiqué1 Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOS for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa Nairobi Safari Club, 20 – 22 September, 2004, Nairobi.
Preamble 1. Whereas the Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, was organized under the auspices of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), in partnership with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), 2. And whereas various institutions, inter-governmental and regional organisations, farmer organisations and stakeholders, drawn from National Agriculture Research Systems, Universities, Non-Governmental Organizations, Civil Society, and International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs), attended the above mentioned consultation, 3. With participants coming from 14 countries in the sub-region, as follows: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe; and also from Canada and Italy, 4. Recognizing that the main goal of this conference was to improve awareness and understanding of different stakeholder perspectives in relation to genetic engineering/ GMOs, and identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advance the course of development in the sub-region, 5. In consequence, participants attending the Regional consultation, arrived at conclusions and recommendations, spelt out in the following Declaration:
We the Conference Participants, 6. Convinced of the special need and urgency for solutions to be found to the problems of Food and Nutritional Insecurity, Poverty, Human Health and Environmental Degradation in the sub-region, and indeed through out the entire continent of Africa; 7. Convinced of the special role of the sub-region’s biodiversity and genetic resources as major ingredients for addressing problems of food and nutritional insecurity, poverty, human health and environmental degradation, and the need to conserve these resources and use them sustainably for present and future generations; 8. Aware that biotechnologies have offered solutions in addressing some problems related to food production, conservation of genetic resources, development of health packages (e.g. vaccines); 9. Aware that some aspects of modern biotechnology, especially Genetic Engineering / Genetically Modified Organisms, have generated a lot of controversy and misunderstanding across a broad range of stakeholder groups; 10. Concerned that this has led to a very polarized debate regarding potential benefits of, and risks associated with GE/ GMO technology for humans and the environment; 11. Aware, that capacities on the subject of genetic engineering/GMOs in countries of the sub-region are generally low, and that this is not enabling informed dialogue and decision making in relation to the issue;
1 The following organizations requested that they be disassociated from the Communiqué: 1. Biowatch, South Africa: represented by Ms Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss 2. The Gaia Foundation, UK: represented by Ms Teresa Andersen 3. National Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Angola: represented by Mrs Elizabeth Matos 4. Mrs Bernadette Lubozhya, Zambia: Agricultural/GMO Consultant DECLARATION AND COMMUNIQUÉ 31
12. Aware also, that a growing number of countries are already embarking on the technology for different reasons, in most cases without adequate structures, frameworks and capacities in place; 13. Conscious that a number of international conventions and treaties on genetic resources, biodiversity and biotechnology (viz, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety, etc) that have been ratified by several African countries, call for sustained country efforts and for collaboration among countries in the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources, and in the development of biosafety protocols and mechanisms, 14. Aware also of other international conventions and treaties on intellectual property rights (e,g. TRIPS, WTO, WIPO, etc) and their linkages with genetic resources; 15. Concerned however, that domestication and implementation of such international conventions in countries within the sub-region has generally been less than optimal; 16. Now therefore DO RESOLVE AND CONCLUDE from our deliberations as follows:
A. The different perspectives on GE/GMOs for development a. The subject of GE/GMOs remains a controversial subject, with deeply held views and perspectives among different stakeholder groups, on its potential benefits and risks with respect to development. Increased dialogue and research is therefore needed to help bridge the gap of misunderstanding and mistrust. b. Governments, groups and individuals advocating for a precautionary approach, or proposing alternative pathways for development should not be seen as counter- productive or ignorant people. c. Increased efforts should be made to bridge the private sector – public sector divide in relation to the technology and its role for development. This will require much investment, consultation and dialogue, conducted in an atmosphere of transparency, accountability and mutual respect.
B. Potential of Biotechnology and GMOs for development d. The consultation affirms that biotechnology involves a broad range of tools , and generally offers potential pathways for addressing problems of human health, food security, poverty alleviation and environmental health; e. Certain aspects of modern biotechnology, specifically those related to genetic engineering and GMOs, do have some concerns and risks associated with them. Any use of such tools should be done within the full framework of bio-safety provisions and with adequate capacities established for their management and monitoring; f. Analysis of the feasibility of GMOs should be done along with an assessment of the alternative pathways and strategies for development. Such analysis should include comparison of GE/GMO technologies with other available options; g. Analysis of GMOs should move from generalities to specifics. There should be case-by-case analysis and focus given to particular GE interventions, e.g. the cases of GE-cotton; Bt-maize; GE-banana; etc.; h. There is also need for focussed country case studies on experiences and perspectives on GMOs. Such studies will be a resource for other countries; i. Countries should formulate needs-demand driven assessments for GE interventions and an action plan for their development, testing and monitoring; j. Development of effective Biosafety and other policy frameworks should be seen as a necessary prerequisite to any work on GMOs by any country or institution.
C. Alternative Pathways for Development k. The consultation recognized the fact that there are a number of sustainable agriculture approaches that can be strengthened to enhance their capacity for 32 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
contributing to food security. Examples of these are: i. integrated pest and disease management ii. integrated soil fertility management iii. targeted and participatory plant and animal breeding iv. neglected and underutilized high value crops v. organic farming l. It was strongly suggested that these alternative pathway approaches have not received the level of resources and funding required to make them attain their potential. Increased efforts need to be made to improve research and development funding in sustainable agriculture approaches; m. There is need for policies, as well as public and private investment to support these approaches.
D. Community Involvement Issues n. Biotechnology, and Genetic Engineering particularly, should not be seen as the preserve of scientists only; increased efforts need to be made in bringing the debate, discussions and consultations into the public domain, with particular emphasis on the need to involve communities; o. The interests of smallholder farmers, relating to seed access and other rights and controls with regard to GMO use, need to be studied and made favourable for the farmer; p. Provide a range of technical training and awareness to farmers, extension and community workers and consumers, on basic biotechnology, biosafety and GMO assessment and testing.
E. Role of Organizers of Consultation q. IDRC and IPGRI are requested to continue efforts made at bridging the gap of misunderstanding across the various schools of thought in relation to GE, and aim at developing research and capacity building actions that will support the appropriate use of biotechnology for development in the sub-region; r. IDRC and IPGRI should seek partnership and collaboration from all relevant organizations, including government departments, research institutions (national, regional and international), nongovernmental organizations, civil society, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), and other donor agencies, for technical and/or financial support in the implementation of the programme of action that will be developed from this consultation.
Developed and Concluded this Twenty Second Day of September, 2004, at Nairobi Safari Club, Nairobi, Kenya. PROGRAMME 33
Appendix 2: Programme DAY 1: 20 September Session I. Opening Session Chairperson: Dr Maurice Mbegera, NEMA Rapporteur: Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton
09.00 – 10.30 Introductory Address Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, IPGRID Opening remarks of the Chairperson Maurice Mbegera, NEMAD Welcome/Opening Remarks Dr Constance Freeman, IDRC-Nairobi Mr. Wardie Leppan, IDRC-Ottawa Introduction of Workshop Purpose, Expectations Dr François Gasengayire, and Programme IDRC- Nairobi / Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton, IPGRI-SSA Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, IPGRI-SSA Biodiversity, Biotechnology and GMOs: Challenges and Opportunities for Food Security and Environmental Health in sub-Saharan Africa 10.30 – 11.00 Tea/Coffee Break Session II. Setting the Stage: Biotechnology and Development Chairperson: Dr Maurice Mbegera Rapporteur: Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton 11.00 – 11.30 Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Beyond Dr Terri Raney, FAO (20 min. the War of Words presentation + 10 min. discussion) 11.30 – 12.00 GMOs in Sustainable Agriculture: Needs and Dr Hans Herren, ICIPE (20 min. Alternatives presentation + 10 min. discussion) 12.00 – 12.30 Why Africa Should Reject GE Crops: Mr Zachary Makanya, (20 min. The Real Issues PELUM-Kenya presentation + 10 min. discussion) 12.30 – 13.00 General Discussion 13.00 – 14.00 Lunch Break Session III. GMOs for Development: The Potential Scenarios in Agriculture and Human Health Chairperson: Dr Hermenegilde Twagiramungu Rapporteur: Ms Elizabeth Obel Lawson 14.00 – 14.30 Biotechnology and Human Development: Dr Mpoko Bokanga, (20 min. Agriculture, Health and Environment Aspects AATF presentation + 10 min. discussion) 14.30 – 14.50 Progress and Constraints with Development of Dr Hennie du Plessis, Genetically Modified Fruit Crops ARC-South Africa 34 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
14.50 – 15.10 Can Bt Maize Alleviate Poverty in Africa? Dr Hugo De Groote and Dr Stephen Ngure Mugo, CIMMYT and KARI 15.10 – 15.30 Discussion 15.30 – 16.00 Tea/Coffee Break 16.00 – 16.30 Biotechnology in Human Health Care: Dr Thomas Egwang, (20 min. GMOs and Other Innovations Medical Biotech. Lab. - presentation +10 Uganda min. discussion) 16.30 – 17.30 General Discussion 18.30 – 20.30 Cocktail Reception
DAY 2: 21 September Session IV. Alternative Viewpoints on GMOs: Risks and Concern Perspectives Chairperson: Dr Hennie du Plessis Rapporteur: Dr Kameswara Rao 08.30 – 08:45 Sustainable Approaches to Agricultural Ms Salome Luhasi, Development and Farmers Perspectives on ENVIROCARE GMOs in Tanzania 08:45 – 09:00 South Africa: What Africa Can Learn from Six Ms Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, Years of Growing GE Crops Biowatch-South Africa 09:00 – 09:15 Discussion 09:15 – 09:45 Report of an IDRC/IPGRI Pre-Workshop Dr Christopher Ngichabe, Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering ASARECA and Genetically Modified Organisms for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa 09:45 – 10:15 Discussion 10.15 – 10.30 Tea/Coffee Break Session V. Policy Issues and Concerns: Biosafety and IPRs Chairperson: Dr Elizabeth Matos Rapporteur: Ms Rose Ndegwa 10.30 – 11:00 The Role of UNEP in Developing Country Owned Dr Charles Gbedemeh, (20 min. National Biosafety Frameworks in Africa UNEP/GEF presentation + 10 (Capacity Building Activities) min. discussion) 11.00 – 11.20 National Biosafety Policies in Sub-SaharanAfrica: Mr Ronald Naluwairo, Key Drivers and Outstanding Issues for Action ACODE–Uganda 11.20 – 11.40 ISD’s Role in Creating Awareness of the Challenges Dr Dereje Gebre Michael, of Biosafety among Critical Stakeholders in Africa ISD–Ethiopia 11.40 – 12.00 Discussion 12.00 – 12.30 IPR, Biotechnology and the African Farmer Dr Patricia Kameri-Mbote, (20 min. University of Nairobi - Kenya presentation + 10 min. discussion) 12.30 – 13.00 General Discussion 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch Break PROGRAMME 35
Working Groups Session I. Synthesis of Issues and Concerns Facilitators: Group I: Dr C. Ngichabe; Group II: Dr R. Auerbach; Group III: Dr. P. Kameri-Mbote Rapporteurs: Group I: Ms E. Pschorn-Strauss; Group III: Mrs Doreen-Shumba Mnyulwa 14.00 – 15.30 Working Group 1: For each of these themes, Potential Benefits and Challenges of GE/GMOs Working Groups will analyze for Sustainable Development in the ESA region and synthesize issues and concerns, following pre- Working Group 2: pared guidelines. Alternative Model or Pathway for Development, and Analysis of Perceived Risks and Uncertainties in the Use of GMOs
Working Group 3: Socio-Cultural/Economic and Policy Environment Issues Related to GE/GMOs 15:30 – 16:00 Tea/Coffee Break
16:00 – 17:00 Working Groups Session I (continued)
Day 3: 22 September
8:30 – 8:45 Presentation of Working Groups Session I Reports 8:45 – 9:00 Discussion Working Groups Session II. Defining Research Needs and a Roadmap for Action 9:00 – 10:00 Working Groups Session II – Working Group 1 For each of these themes, – Working Group 2 Working Groups will: – Working Group 3 – translate identified concerns into researchable issues and questions –identify consensus – building ideas and divergent ideas, –identify other interventions /actions, –recommend a way forward 10:00 – 10:30 Tea/Coffee Break
10:30 – 11:30 Working Groups Session II (continued) 11:30 – 12:00 Presentation of Working Groups Session II Reports 12.00 – 13.00 Discussion 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Break 14:00 – 15:00 Preparation of a Synthesis Report
Closing Session Chairperson: Dr Rose R. Kingamukono Rapporteur: Dr Raymond Auerbach 15:00 – 16:00 Presentation of Workshop Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, IPGRI- Recommendations/Communiqué SSA Closing Remarks Mr Wardie Leppan, IDRC, Ottawa. 36 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Appendix 3: List of Participants
ANGOLA Tel: 254 20 2718977/573186 Ms Elizabeth Matos E-mail: [email protected] Director National Plant Genetic Resources Centre Ms Esther Mwaura-Muiru (NPGRC) National Coordinator P.O. Box 10043, Luanda GROOTS Kenya Tel: 244 2 321688/325673 P.O. Box 10320-00100, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Tel: 254 20 2718977/573186 E-mail: [email protected] BOTSWANA Dr Deborah D. Shushu Mr Gathuru Mburu Senior Lecturer Tel: 254 20 722 250550 Department of Biological Sciences E-mail: [email protected] University of Botswana (UB) Private Bag 0022, Gaborone Mr Joseph M. Wekundah Tel: 267 72218766 Executive Director Fax: 267 3158095 Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 1285-00100, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 600040/603983 BURUNDI Fax: 254 20 603358 Ms Wivine Ntamubano E-mail: [email protected] Faculty of Sciences Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology Dr Josephine Songa University of Burundi Principal Research Scientist P.O. Box 2700, Bujumbura Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) Tel: 257 225556/235585 Tel: 254 20 4444251 Fax: 257 223288 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Dr Margaret Wagah ETHIOPIA Lecturer Kenyatta University Mr Dereje Gebre Michael P.O. Box 43844, Nairobi Programme Coordinator Tel: 254 20 812385, 254 722 634094 Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 171, code 1110, Addis Ababa Tel: 251 1 167406 (office), 251 1 243327 Mr Maurice O. Mbegera Mobile†: 251 9 243327 Director – Compliance & Enforcement Fax: 251 1 669466 National Environment Management Authority E-mail: [email protected], (NEMA) [email protected] P.O. Box 67839-00200 Tel: 254 20 605522/6/7, 254 721 361622/733 Mr Yonas Yohannes Abreham 759744 Coordinator Fax: 254 20 608997, Nairobi African Biodiversity Network (ABN) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 171 code 1110 Addis Ababa Tel: 251 1 669467, 251 9 240744 Mr Moses M. Shaha Fax: 251 1 669466 National Chairman E-mail: [email protected], Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum [email protected] P.O. Box 388, Kilifi 80108 KENYA Tel: 254 720 212256, 254 722 685400 Fax: 254-41-525408 Ms Charity Gatari E-mail: [email protected] Program Officer – Environment and Health Program GROOTS Kenya P.O. Box 10320-00100, Nairobi LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 37
Dr Patricia Kameri-Mbote RWANDA Senior Lecturer and Chair – Department of Dr Hermenegilde Twagiramungu Private Law Director General Faculty of Law Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda University of Nairobi (ISAR) P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi P.O. Box 138, Butare Tel: 254 20 3754206 Tel: 250 530145 Fax: 254 20 3744284 Mobile: 250-08306961 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 250 530145 E-mail: [email protected], Dr Wanjiru Wanyoike [email protected] Community Initiatives in Agriculture and Environment (CINEA) SOUTH AFRICA P.O. Box 64145-00620, Nairobi Ms Brenda Ndlovu Tel: 254 20 722 418861 Programme Officer E-mail: [email protected] Gender & Trade Network in Africa (GENTA) P.O. Box 61313, Marshalltown, 2107 Mr Zachary Makanya Tel: 27 11 838 0449 Country Desk Coordinator Fax: 27 11 832 2665 Participatory Ecological Land-Use Management E-mail: [email protected] (PELUM)-Kenya P.O. Box 1134, Thika Ms Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss Tel: 254 67 31686 Researcher Fax: 254 67 30055 Biowatch South Africa E-mail: [email protected] 38 Mount Pleasant Street. Darling, 7345 Tel: 27 22 492 3426, Maryam Imbumi Mobile: 27 21 447 5939 Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Fax: 27 22 492 3426 Knowledge (KENRIK), National Museums of E-mail: [email protected] Kenya P.O. Box 40658 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Dr Hennie du Plessis Tel +254 20 3741673 Assistant Director Email: [email protected] ARC Infruitec_Nietvoorbij Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599 MALAWI Tel: 27 21 8093474 Mr Patrick Mphadzula Fax: 27 21 8093491 Senior Scientific Officer E-mail: [email protected] National Research Council of Malawi (NRCM) P.O. Box 30745, Lilongwe 3 Dr Raymond Auerbach Tel: 265 1 771550 Director Fax: 265 1 772431 Rainman Landcare Foundation E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 91, Peacevale 3624 Tel: 27 31 783 4412, 27 84 567 1250 MOZAMBIQUE Fax: 27 31 783 4641 Mr Filipe Pequenino E-mail: [email protected], Food Security National Coordinator [email protected] ActionAid International Mozambique P.O. Box 2608, Maputo SWAZILAND Rua Comandante Augusto Cardoso 327/329 Dr Abednego M. Dlamini Tel: 258 1 314342/5, 258 82 309431 Senior Lecturer Fax: 258 1 314346 University of Swaziland (UNISWA) E-mail: [email protected] Private Bag, Luyengo Tel: 268 603 4608 Fax: 268 404 1719 E-mail: [email protected] 38 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
TANZANIA Fax: 256 41 347395 Dr Emmarold Mneney E-mail: [email protected] Agricultural Research Officer Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute Dr Thomas Egwang (MARI) Director General and Scientific Director P.O. Box 6226, Dar es Salaam Med Biotech Laboratories (MBL) Tel: 255 22 2775663, 255 744 387662 P.O. Box 9364, Kampala Fax: 255 22 2775549 Tel: 256 41 266746/510245 E-mail: [email protected], E [email protected] Fax: 256 41 510408 E-mail: [email protected] Dr Rose Rita Kingamkono Director of Research Coordination and ZAMBIA Promotion Mrs Bernadette Lubozhya Tanzania Commission for Science and Agricultural/GMO Consultant (Private) Technology (COSTECH) c/o Organic Producers and Processors P.O. Box 4302, Dar es Salaam Association of Zambia (OPPAZ) Tel: 255 22 2700752 P.O. Box 35317, Kabulonga Rd., Lusaka 10101 255 744 769808/741 540860 (mobile) Tel: 260 1 263070/263065 Fax: 255 22 2775313-4 Fax: 260 1 265208 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Ms Salome Luhasi Mr Clement Chipokolo Head of Environment Department Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) Environmental, Human Rights Care and Gender P.O. Box 30395, Lusaka Organization (ENVIROCARE) Tel: 260 1 252677/252649 P.O. Box 9824, Dar es Salaam Mobile†: 260 95 752878 Tel: 255 22 2701407/2775592, 255 744 381170 Fax: 260 1 252648 Fax: 255 22 2701407 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] ZIMBABWE Mrs Doreen-Shumba Mnyulwa UGANDA Executive Director Dr Daphrose Gahakwa BTZ–Regional Agricultural and Environment Research Scientist Initiatives Network (BTZ-RAEIN) National Agricultural Research Organisation P.O. Box BW 267, Borrowdale, Harare (NARO) Tel: 263 4 703481/250468 Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute Fax: 263 4 250468 P.O. Box 7065, Kampala E-mail: [email protected], Tel: 256 41 566102 [email protected] Fax: 256 41 566381 E-mail: [email protected] Mr Emmanuel Sackey Patent Examiner (Biochemistry/Biotechnology) Mr Ronald Naluwairo African Regional Industrial Property Research Fellow Organisation (ARIPO) Advocates Coalition for Development and 11 Natal Road, Belgravia, P.O. Box 4228, Harare Environment (ACODE) Tel: 263 4 794065/6 P.O. Box 29836, Kampala Mobile†: 263 11 219103 Plot 96 Kanjokya Street Fax: 263 4 794072/3 Tel: 256 41 530798 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 256 41 530487 E-mail: [email protected]
Mr Sam Kuloba Watasa Executive Director Uganda Consumers’ Protection Association (UCPA) P.O. Box 2422, Kampala Tel: 256 41 234002, 256 71 644655 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 39
REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL Mrs Elizabeth Mwaniki RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS Scientific Assistant Ms Abigael Odanga International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Programme Assistant Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Tel: 254 20 524500/524523 P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Fax: 254 20 524501 Tel: 254 20 524500 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 254 20 524501 E-mail: [email protected] Mrs Elizabeth Obel-Lawson Scientific Assistant/Public Awareness Dr Christopher K. Ngichabe International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Regional Coordinator - Biotechnology and Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Biosafety Program P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Association for Strengthening Agricultural Tel: 254 20 524500/524514 Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) Fax: 254 20 524501 P.O. Box 765, Plot 5, Mpigi Rd., Entebbe E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 256 41 322126 Fax: 256 41 322593 Mr Eric Kisiangani E-mail: [email protected] Project Manager – Food Security and Dry-land Agriculture Project Ms Dorcas Mwangi Intermediate Technology Development Group Project Officer (ITDG) – Eastern Africa Consumer Information Network – Kenya (CIN) P.O. Box 39493-00623, Nairobi P.O. Box 7569-00300, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 2713540/2719313 Tel: 254 20 781131 Fax: 254 20 2710083 Fax: 254 20 781131 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Dr Hans Herren Director General Ms Doris M. Lewa International Centre of Insect Physiology and Programme Assistant Ecology (ICIPE) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Tel: 254 20 802501/3/9 P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Fax: 254 20 803360/860110 Tel: 254 20 524517/524509 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 254 20 524501 E-mail: [email protected] Dr Hugo De Groote International Centre for Wheat and Maize Ms Dorothy Nanzala Improvement (CIMMYT) Programme Assistant P.O. Box 25171, Nairobi International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Tel: 254 20 524600/524610 Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Fax: 254 20 524601/524001 P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254 20 524517/524512 Fax: 254 20 524501 Prof James O. Ochanda E-mail: [email protected] Coordinator - Biosciences Facility Project International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Dr Ellie Osir P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Unit Tel: 254 20 630743 (MBBU) Fax: 254 20 631499 International Centre of Insect Physiology and E-mail: [email protected] Ecology (ICIPE) P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 802501/3/9 Fax: 254 20 803360/860110 E-mail: [email protected] 40 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Mr John Kinuthia Dr Melchior Nahimana Programmes Coordinator Director General Consumer Information Network – Kenya (CIN) Institut de Recherche Agronomique et P.O. Box 7569-00300, Nairobi Zootechnique (IRAZ) Tel: 254 20 781131 BP 91, Gitega. Burundi Fax: 254 20 781131 Tel: 257 40 3020 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 257 40 2364 E-mail: [email protected], Mr John McDermott [email protected] Deputy Director General International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Dr Mikkel Grum P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi Scientist – Genetic Diversity Tel: 254 20 630743 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Fax: 254 20 631499 Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 524500/524505 Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton Fax: 254 20 524501 Associate Scientist – In situ conservation E-mail: [email protected] International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Dr Mpoko Bokanga P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi Executive Director Tel: 254 20 524500/524504 African Agricultural Technology Foundation- Fax: 254 20 524501 Kenya (AATF) - c/o ILRI E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 30709-00100, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 630743 ext. 3739 Dr Kameswara Rao Fax: 254 20 631499 Germplasm Conservation Scientist E-mail: [email protected] International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Nancy Muchiri P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi African Agricultural Technology Foundation- Tel: 254 20 524500/524511 Kenya (AATF) - c/o ILRI Fax: 254 20 524501 P.O. Box 30709-00100, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254 20 630743 Fax: 254 20 631499 Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah E-mail: [email protected] Regional Director International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Mr Nicholas Kerandi Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Consultant/Web Developer P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Tel: 254 20 524507/524524 Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Fax: 254 20 524501/524001 P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254 20 524500/524509 Fax: 254 20 524501 Dr Laurent Ntahuga E-mail: [email protected] Regional Technical Co-ordinator for Biodiversity and Species for the Eastern Africa Region Mr Noah Nsubuga IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Eastern Meeting Master Rapporteur Africa Regional Office International Plant Genetic Resources Institute P.O. Box 68200-00200, Nairobi Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) Tel: 254 20 890605, 254 721 696695 P.O.Box 61836-00200 Fax: 254 20 890615 Nairobi, Kenya E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254-0721-556277 E-mail: [email protected] LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 41
Dr Olivier Hanotte Tel: 254-20-2713540 Ext. 215 Project Leader – Animal Genetic Resources Mobile: 254-0720-315079 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Fax: 254-20-2710083 P.O. Box 30709-00100, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254 20 630743, ext. 4708 Fax: 254 20 631499 INTERGOVERNMENTAL E-mail: [email protected] ORGANIZATIONS Mr Charles Gbedemah Mr Patrick Maundu Africa Regional Coordinator - Biosafety International Plant Genetic Resources Institute United Nations Environment Programme Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) (UNEP) P.O.Box 61836-00200 P.O. Box 47074, Nairobi, Kenya Nairobi, Kenya UNEP-GEF Office Tel: 254 20 524500 Tel: 254 20 624066 Fax: 254 20 524501 Fax: 254 20 624041 [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Mr Peter Munyi Dr Terri Raney International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Senior Economist and Editor – The State of Food Sub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA) and Agriculture P.O. Box 61836-00200 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nairobi, Kenya Nations (FAO-UN) Tel: 254 20 524500/524505 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100, Rome, Italy Fax: 254 20 524501 Tel: 39 06 570 52401 Email: [email protected] Fax: 39 06 570 55522 E-mail: [email protected] Dr Remy Pasquet International Centre of Insect Physiology and DONOR ORGANIZATIONS Ecology (ICIPE) Dr Basil Jones P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi Senior Program Specialist Tel: 254 20 802501/3/9 International Development Research Centre – Fax: 254 20 803360/860110 Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office E-mail: [email protected] (IDRC – ESARO) P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi Ms Rose Ndegwa Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Intellectual Property Officer Fax: 254 20 2711063 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 30709-00100, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 630743 Dr Constance J. Freeman Fax: 254 20 631499 Regional Director E-mail: [email protected] International Development Research Centre – Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office Dr Sophia Huyer (IDRC – ESARO) Senior Research Advisor P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi Gender Advisory Board Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 United Nations Commission on Science and Fax: 254 20 2711063 Technology for Development E-mail: [email protected] 204 Ventress Road, Brighton, Ontario K0K 1H0, Canada Dr François Gasengayire E-mail: [email protected] Senior Program Officer International Development Research Centre – Ms Teresa Andersen Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office GE/IPRs Information Officer (IDRC – ESARO) The Gaia Foundation P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi c/o Intermediate Technology Development Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Group (ITDG) – Eastern Africa Fax: 254 20 2711063 P. O. Box 39493 Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] 42 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT
Dr Innocent Butaré Ms Vivianne Ngugi Senior Program Specialist Outreach & Communications Officer International Development Research Centre – International Development Research Centre – West and Central Africa Regional Office (IDRC – Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office WARO) (IDRC – ESARO) P.O. Box 11007, Dakar P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi Tel: 221 864 0000, ext. 2074 Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Fax: 221 825 3255 Fax: 254 20 2711063 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Dr Luis Navarro Mr Wardie Leppan Senior Program Specialist Team Leader – Sustainable Use of Biodiversity International Development Research Centre – International Development Research Centre Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (IDRC) – Head Office (IDRC – ESARO) P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, Ontario P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi Tel: 1 613 236 6163 Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Fax: 1 613 238 7230 Fax: 254 20 2711063 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] THE MEDIA Ms Margaret Male Mr Fredrick Nzwili Programme Administrator East Africa Correspondent International Development Research Centre – Ecumenical News International (ENI) Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office P.O. Box 11562-00100 (IDRC – ESARO) Tel: 254 20 722 750163 P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Fax: 254 20 2711063 Mr Kimani Chege E-mail: [email protected] Biosafety News E-mail: [email protected] Ms Maureen Nakirunda Research Officer Mr Konchora Guracha International Development Research Centre – The East African Standard Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office Tel: 254 20 340080/3222111 (IDRC – ESARO) E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 62084-00200, Nairobi Tel: 254 20 2713160/1 Mr Naftali Mungai Fax: 254 20 2711063 Nation Newspapers E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 49010-00100 Nairobi Tel: 254-20-32088000.