regional consultation on genetic engineering/gmos for ... · synthesis report regional consultation...

Synthesis Report

Regional Consultation on GeneticEngineering/GMOs for Developmentin Eastern and Southern AfricaK. Atta-Krah, F. Gasengayire, J. Ndung’u-Skilton and N. Nsubuga

Edited by E. Obel-Lawson

<www.futureharvest.org>

IPGRI isa Future Harvest Centre

supported by theConsultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)

October 2004

Synthesis Report

Regional Consultation on GeneticEngineering/GMOs for Developmentin Eastern and Southern AfricaNairobi Safari Club, 20–22 September 2004Nairobi, KenyaK. Atta-Krah, F. Gasengayire, J. Ndung’u-Skilton and N. Nsubuga

Edited by E. Obel-Lawson

About IDRC

The CentreCanada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC, the Centre) is one of the world’sleading institutions in the generation and application of new knowledge to meet the challengesfacing developing countries. IDRC funds applied research by researchers from developingcountries on the problems they identify as crucial to their communities. It also provides technicalsupport to those researchers. IDRC builds local capacity in developing countries to undertakeresearch and create innovations, believing that people from developing countries must takethe lead in producing and applying knowledge for the benefit of their own communities. IDRCalso fosters alliances and knowledge sharing between scientific, academic, and developmentcommunities in Canada and developing countries.

IDRC - Regional Office for Eastern and Southern AfricaThe IDRC Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa (ESARO) is located in the Kenyancapital of Nairobi. IDRC has been working in Southern and Eastern Africa for over 25 years insuch areas as information and communication technologies (ICTs), peace building, urbanagriculture, health, trade and biodiversity, to name a few. The office has a staff strength of morethan 35.

Further details on IDRC can be sourced from the website: http://www.idrc.ca

About IPGRIThe International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an independent internationalscientific organization that seeks to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic diversityfor the well being of present and future generations. It is one of 15 Future Harvest Centressupported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), anassociation of public and private members who support efforts to mobilize cutting-edge scienceto reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect theenvironment. IPGRI has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in morethan 20 countries worldwide.

IPGRI’s programme in sub-Saharan Africa is designed to promote and enhance theconservation and use of plant genetic diversity and its contribution towards livelihoods andwell-being in the continent. The programme aims to assist countries and regional programmein their work on plant genetic resources. IPGRI’s regional office for SSA is located on thecompound of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). A sub-regional Office for West and CentralAfrica 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 anyopinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or IDRC. The views expressed are those of the authorsand the workshop, and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.

ii REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

CONTENTS iii

Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. vList of Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................... viiExecutive Summary ....................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1Opening Session................................................................................................................................. 1

Goal and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2Keynote Presentation ................................................................................................................... 3

Kwesi Atta-Krah

Opening Session Presentations ..................................................................................................... 6Opening Remarks .............................................................................................................................. 6

Ratemo Michieka

The Conference Segment ................................................................................................................ 8Session 2: Setting the Stage – Biotechnology and Development ............................................... 8Session 3: GMOs for Development – The Potential Scenarios in Agricultureand 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) .............................................................................. 16Working Group I – Potential Benefits and Challenges of Genetic Engineering andGMOs for Sustainable Development ............................................................................................ 16

Potential benefits ........................................................................................................................ 16Risks and concerns that need to be addressed ....................................................................... 17Potential barriers/challenges.................................................................................................... 18Research and capacity building questions/issues ................................................................. 19Capacity building questions and issues .................................................................................. 20Action plan .................................................................................................................................. 20

Working Group II – Alternative Model or Pathway for Development and Analysis ofPerceived Risks and Uncertainties in the Use of GMOs ............................................................ 21

GE/GMOs – not a silver bullet ................................................................................................. 21Risks and concerns ..................................................................................................................... 21Alternatives to GE/GMOs ........................................................................................................ 22Potential barriers and challenges to non-GE strategies and possible solutions ................ 23Research and capacity building issues .................................................................................... 24Action plan .................................................................................................................................. 24

Working Group III – Socio-Cultural/Economic and Policy Issues Related to GE/GMOs ... 25The test is at the community level ........................................................................................... 25

Barriers/challenges to be considered in relation to the enabling environment ..................... 26Research and capacity building questions/issues ................................................................. 27Action plan .................................................................................................................................. 27

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 28Appendix 1: Declaration and Communiqué .......................................................................... 30Appendix 2: Programme ........................................................................................................... 33Appendix 3: List of Participants ............................................................................................... 36

iv REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

Cover photo (background): National Museums of Kenya

Foreword

Africa is urgently in need of answers and solutions to the myriad of problems and challengesthat 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 andanalyzed at various levels and in diverse fora. It is commonly held that the situation is urgentand appears to be getting even more daunting by the day.

Genetic engineering – the process leading to Genetically Modified Organisms, is one pathwaythat has been proffered as offering an amazing potential of contributing towards the mitigationor amelioration of the problem scenarios faced in development. Perspectives and viewpointson 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 beenorganized largely by the two lobbies; with each lobby defending and supporting their ownpositions. 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 aview of resolving the conceptions and/or misconceptions in relation to the subject, and mappingout an acceptable way forward that will be in the interest of development. What is not oftenrealized, is the fact that a large majority of people hold perspectives that fit in between the twoextremes, 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 criticallytaking all concerns into account.

This regional consultation on GE/GMOs was designed for such a purpose. The InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), in partnership with the International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI) organized this workshop. It is one in a series of regional workshopsbeing organized under the framework of IDRC, to identify research and development actionsthat could be undertaken in relation to GE/GMOs and development.

The consultation was not about seeking consensus, but rather seeking understanding. It broughttogether people with different views and perspectives in relation to the subject at hand; comingfrom different institutions, with different mandates and strategies. The entire organization andfacilitation of the consultation was done in such a way as to accommodate differences of opinionand minimize intolerance and mistrust. Participants were made to see themselves not asopponents, but as people with different perspectives on how to deal with commonly heldproblems. Emphasis was given to exploring common agendas to maximize the opportunitiesfor drawing synergies even out of the strongly held differences.

The atmosphere of the meeting was both creative and friendly, and multiple groupings ofcommon interest formed. The success achieved in this consultation was due, to a very largedegree, to the open platform created for the different viewpoints to be expressed, and also tothe creation of room for different positions to be further developed. The three Working Groupsthat worked to define the way forward and the recommendations, operated not from a singleforced hypotheses, but from different hypotheses reflecting the respective viewpoints. Anexciting 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. Thesepointed to certain areas of agreement, as well as areas in which there was “agreement todisagree”.

Many individuals helped to make this consultation successful. We would like to thank all theparticipants for their active participation and dedication. The organizers are particularly gratefulto all the paper presenters at the consultation; the high quality of the presentations has been

FOREWORD v

sighted as one of the strong points of this consultation. We also wish to thank the LogisticsTeam and the Technical Steering Team that were put together by IDRC and IPGRI, responsiblefor implementing this consultation.

We look forward to emerging programmes of action arising from this regional consultationthat would support eradication of food insecurity, poverty, disease and environmentaldegradation on the continent of AFRICA.

François Gasengayire Kwesi Atta-KrahSenior Program Officer Regional DirectorIDRC-ESARO IPGRI-SSA

vi REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation – KenyaABS Access Benefit SharingACODE Advocates Coalition for Development and EnvironmentAIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeARC Agricultural Research CouncilASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern AfricaAU African UnionBCH Biosafety Clearing HouseBt Bacillus thuringiensisCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement CentreDNA Deoxyribonucleic acidENVIROCARE Environmental, Human Rights Care and Gender OrganizationESA East and Southern AfricaESARO IDRC – Regional Office for Eastern and Southern AfricaEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)GE Genetic engineeringGEF Global Environment FacilityGMO Genetically Modified OrganismHIV Human Immunodeficiency VirusICRAF World Agroforestry CentreIDRC International Development Research CentreIK Indigenous KnowledgeIPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIPR International Property RightsISD Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentITK Indigenous Technological KnowledgeKARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteLMO Living Modified OrganismMRI Magnetic Resonance ImagingMTA Material Transfer AgreementNARS National Agricultural Research SystemsNBF National Biosafety FrameworkNEMA National Environment Management AuthorityNGO Nongovernmental OrganizationPELUM Participatory Ecological Land-Use Management - KenyarDNA Recombinant DNASSA sub-Saharan AfricaTB TuberculosisUNEP United Nations Environment Programme

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii

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. Itwas organized by IDRC-Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa in partnership withIPGRI-Sub-Saharan Africa. The main goal of the consultation was to improve awareness andunderstanding of different stakeholder perspectives in relation to genetic engineering/GMOs,and identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advance the course ofdevelopment 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 processwas designed to ensure a balanced representation of a cross-section of stakeholders includingresearchers, civil society representatives, farmer and consumer groups’ representatives, and policymakers. Eighty two people coming from 14 countries in the sub-region attended the workshop. Asa precursor to the workshop an electronic consultation was conducted to obtain inputs from alarge cross-section of stakeholders. A total of 250 individuals including participants of the workshopwere served with a questionnaire and 80 responded. The survey outcomes were presented anddiscussed at the workshop as further input into the consultation.

The programme for the workshop was structured into two main segments: (i) a conferencesegment, comprising a number of presentations in plenary, followed by discussions; and (ii) aworkshop segment, involving three working groups. The working groups were designed aroundthree different viewpoints or hypotheses, as follows:

1. GE/GMOs is a viable technology option that could effectively contribute towardsdevelopment in Africa

2. GE/GMOs is a risky option, and not necessarily the most cost effective, relevant and safest pathwayfor future development

3. Neither GMOs nor any other technological innovation will work at community level unless thenecessary socio-cultural parameters and policy environment is created and taken into consideration

The working groups synthesized key issues, concerns and challenges, and identified researchand capacity needs that would help resolve controversies and lead to development.

The workshop offered an opportunity for participants to reflect on the gravity of challengesfacing development in Africa. These related to poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, poorhuman health, and environmental degradation. Participants underlined the role of Africa’sbiodiversity in addressing these problems.

Different viewpoints and perspectives on GE/GMOs were exchanged. One school of thoughtrepresented the view that biotechnology, including GE/GMOs, holds a great potential forAfrica’s development and therefore needs to be effectively exploited, taking biosafetyconsiderations 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 pharmaceuticalindustry; 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 studiessuch 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 experiencedwith conventional fruit production techniques; and the findings of an FAO report - The State ofFood and Agriculture 2003-04: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor?

Some specific research and capacity building needs coming from the analysis of thisviewpoint were: farmer needs assessment and needs-based research; development of criteriaand 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,

viii REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

and poor soils); identification of specific areas where GE could remove constraints toproductivity with a competitive advantage to conventional techniques; risk and environmentalassessments; development of awareness programs to monitor and enhance the circulation ofappropriate and verified information on GE/GMOs targeting various stakeholders includingfarmers, the general public, and policy makers; and support capacity development in all aspectspertaining 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, andindeed unnecessary at this point in time, as there were suitable alternative pathways. Thisgroup believed that GE/GMOs could reduce farmers’ options and yet does not address theirpriority problems such as lack of access to credit, and climatic hazards. There is concern overthe potential loss of the small-scale farmers’ right to save, use and exchange their seeds, andthe loss of food sovereignty. The group believed that there are several alternative options toGE/GMOs that are under-explored, under-exploited and under-funded, thus making themappear ineffective, while overwhelming emphasis appears to be going towards supportingGE/GMOs (especially by the private sector). These options include conventional plant breeding,biological control, conventional research into mixed cropping with IPM (integrated pestmanagement), organic farming, neglected and underutilized high value crops, etc. GE shouldbe treated as one tool among many in a toolbox. It was noted that GM technology was in itsinfancy and too little research and risk assessment had been done on it. African problems towhich GE could only offer partial solutions include pests and diseases. Problems to which GEhad no answer and, in some cases, only aggravates the problems include market access,infrastructure, poor scientific capacity and dysfunctional extension systems. Concern wasexpressed that GE could destroy biodiversity, and the mode of production that sustains over70% of the small-scale farmers in Africa.

Some specific research and capacity development areas recommended from this analysisincluded: state-of-the-art studies indicating what options the small-scale farmer has; scientificevaluation (costs and benefits) of alleged GE successes (e.g. the case of Makhathini Bt cotton);establishment of agrobiodiversity conservation programmes that should include processes fortesting for the presence of GE/GMOs; creation of farmer networks to facilitate exchange ofideas and promotion of best practices; promotion of biological pest control methods includingIPM and natural soil fertility improvement methods; support installation of national regulatoryframeworks relating to biosafety and IPR.

Participants also exchanged views on the socio-cultural, policy and legislation aspects withrelevance for GE/GMOs development, testing and use. Special emphasis was given to theissues of biosafety and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). It was underscored that the idea ofthe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) was to embrace the benefits of GMOs while ensuringadequate safety. So there was a need to redefine the scope of national biosafety policies to focuson GE/GMOs and scale up public participation. The presentation on IPRs highlighted thecomplexity 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 butwith little overall coherence. Each country needs to address its national issues and developsuitable legal, regulatory and property rights framework, as well as a sui generis legislation onownership, 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 researchon locally available technologies, socio-cultural norms and values, and needs assessment atthe 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, policymakers and development workers); training on relevant policies and advocacy including butnot limited to biodiversity, bio-safety and IPR at all levels; and training on participatory researchmethodologies and socio-gender analysis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

Participants identified some of the most challenging constraints/barriers. These relate to:inadequate local research and development (R and D) and regulatory frameworks to handlenew technologies especially GE; incoherent and uncoordinated policies; inadequate technologyextension and transfer systems; lack of market and trade infrastructure for new technologiesand products; lack of access to roads and microfinance; depletion of workforce by pandemicssuch as HIV/AIDS and malaria; rampant poverty; bad governance; incongruous land tenuresystems; and ethical and religious considerations.

The consultation enabled discussion of the different options and viewpoints with regardsto GE/GMOs. Ultimately however, it is hoped that the outcomes will contribute towardsidentification of some grounds for joint action and for research and capacity building that willpromote development and food security in the region. At the end of the workshop, participantsdiscussed and adopted a Declaration and Communiqué as a general reflection of diverse viewspresented during the consultation. However, after further reflection on the document, a numberof 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.

x REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

The Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for Development in Eastern andSouthern Africa was held at the Nairobi Safari Club, Nairobi, Kenya from 20 to 22 September2004. Eighty-two participants comprising a cross section of stakeholder groups and institutionsincluding research and academics, consumer groups, NGO/Civil Society, farmer groups,governmental and inter-governmental organizations, and regional networks; coming from 13countries and 49 institutions/organizations attended the meeting. These stakeholders’ variedinterests were mainly in the domains of agriculture, health, environment, trade and policy.The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI) jointly organized the meeting. This synthesis report presents themain outcomes of the consultation.

Opening SessionDr Kwesi Atta-Krah, Regional Director of IPGRI for sub-Saharan Africa, opened the proceedingsby welcoming the participants. In his introductory remarks he informed the participants thatthe idea of the Regional Consultation was mooted by IDRC, and IPGRI’s partnership wassought. He suggested that the central issue for the consultation should not be seen as GMOsand the conflicts surrounding them. The central issue, he said, was about people, developmentand the survival of our environment. The challenges of growing food insecurity, the abjectpoverty and environmental degradation are principal issues that are a common concern for allthe interests represented at the consultation.

Participants were reminded that although they had come from differently mandatedorganizations and held different and divergent views on the subject of GMOs, they had notgathered together as opponents or enemies. Dr Atta-Krah stressed the importance of respectingand understanding each other’s perspective, and encouraged participants to seek to learn fromone another. He added that the consultation was not aiming at seeking consensus among thevarious viewpoints, but rather to enhance understanding and explore avenues for the emergenceof a common agendas research needs for the future, for the good of the sub-region. He expressedgratitude to IDRC for spearheading the initiative, and to others who were involved in theprocesses of preparing for what he referred to as a ‘landmark’ meeting. Lastly he introducedthe Chairperson for the event, Dr Maurice Mbegera, Director, Compliance and Enforcement,National Environment Monitoring Authority, NEMA (who was representing Prof. RatemoMichieka, Director General of NEMA.

Dr Maurice Mbegera expressed the apologies of Prof. Michieka, who had had to travel outof 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 goingon for centuries. However, genetic engineering/genetic modification has come as a newtechnology that has made it possible to change the genetic make-up of crops and at timescreate transgenic crops. He pointed out that the debate on both sides of the divide had gone onin isolation and was so polarized that the public was stuck in a state of confusion. He expressedhis support and conviction in the approach taken by IDRC and IPGRI in organizing theconsultation; he felt it had created a unique opportunity for dialogue on such an importantsubject.

In a scene-setting presentation, Dr Constance Freeman, Regional Director, IDRC-ESARO,highlighted the fact that hunger, disease and environmental degradation were major problemson the continent, and caused a loss of options for Africa. She recalled the history of the GreenRevolution and pointed out that although the revolution helped to solve hunger problemsespecially in India and parts of Asia, it intensified poverty as it marginalized the small-scalefarmer and eroded biodiversity. The resource-poor farmers could not afford the inputs, andthere were also losses of farmers’ landraces. She indicated that in some ways, GE/GMOs couldbe seen as the green revolution of the 21st Century. For instance, just as the green revolution,

INTRODUCTION 1

GE/GMOs could bring solutions such as increased productivity, pest resistant crops, andvaccines, 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 stressedthat the idea of the meeting was to find how IDRC and the participants could work together onthese concerns.

Mr Wardie Leppan, IDRC-Ottawa outlined the history of IDRC’s involvement withbiotechnology. He pointed out that the organization had been involved in biotechnology researchfor about 30 years but was aware of the sensitivities surrounding aspects of modernbiotechnology, especially genetic engineering. He indicated that given the huge investmentsand tempo of activity attending GE/GMOs today, IDRC’s interest has been stepped up seekingto contribute towards identifying a clear path for the future and explore whatever potentialsthere may be for sustainable development. It is in this regard that IDRC is embarking on anumber of regional consultations on GE/GMOs. Mr. Leppan indicated IDRC’s guidingprinciples 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 ObjectivesDr. Francois Gasengayire and Ms. Julia Ndungu-Skilton introduced the workshop objectivesand expected outputs, and led participants through the programme.

The primary goal of the meeting was to bring together in one forum, a broad range ofstakeholders regardless of their position in the ongoing debate on the potential benefits andrisks associated with GE/GMOs, for constructive dialogue in order to enhance understandingon 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 relationto genetic engineering/GMOs

2. To contribute to the current biotechnology debate and its potential benefits and risks inthe areas of agriculture, health, and environment

3. To identify major concerns and needs relating to genetic engineering /GMOs as theyparticularly affect the ESA region

4 To identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advancedevelopment 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 andgenetically 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 developmentand science, and are generally accepted without controversy.

The programme for the consultation was structured into two main segments: a conferencesegment of four plenary sessions, and a 2-session segment of working groups. Each of these

2 REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON GENETIC ENGINEERING/GMOs FOR DEVELOPMENT

segments lasted a day and a half. The conference segment involved a number of presentationsfollowed by plenary discussions, while the working group segment involved moderateddiscussions in small groups, to synthesize the issues and concerns, and to identify possiblefuture actions and define research needs that would help resolve controversies and lead todevelopment.

Keynote PresentationAgriculture, Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs): Challenges and Opportunities for Food Security and EnvironmentalHealth in sub-Saharan AfricaBy Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, Regional Director, IPGRI-SSA

SummaryThe keynote presentation underscored the importance of Africa’s biodiversity to agriculture,health and environment, and juxtaposed it with the present state of food insecurity, povertyand environmental degradation on the continent. This analysis was then related to the potentialof biotechnology (with emphasis on GMOs) and to the on-going debate on the benefits andrisks associated with Genetic Engineering (GE) and GMO products, that has led to stronglypolarized positions on the issue. Dr Atta-Krah analyzed the two scenarios, and related that tothe African situation of being caught in-between ‘two elephants’. He observed that Africa couldbe 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 groundsthat needed to be addressed. He stressed that dialogue and science needed to go together andcautioned that taking extreme positions either way and refusing to discuss issues across thedivide would be counter-productive.

Some highlights of the full presentation are given below:IntroductionThe three ‘bios’ (biodiversity, biotechnology and biosafety) are all important and significant toagriculture. They are also inter-related and need to be assessed and developed in an integratedfashion. They also have certain peculiar challenges and opportunities, which need to be managedand exploited in a sustainable manner to support food security, poverty alleviation and theprotection of the environment.

Biodiversity represents the diversity of life forms on earth. It entails the species richness ofthe ecosystem, the structure of their populations, their interrelationships and interactions withtheir habitats.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993) defines biotechnology as “anytechnological 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 thatincludes the use of microorganisms in processes such as fermentation in the brewery and bakingindustries, to genetic modification or transformation of the modern era. Each biotechnologyapplication may have its own set of risks and opportunities.

Biodiversity within agriculture (agrobiodiversity) is seen as the foundation for sustainabilityof agriculture, and provides the building blocks for genetic enhancement of plants and livestockin agriculture. It comprises those elements at all levels of the biological hierarchy, from genesto ecosystems, involved in agriculture and food production. Thus, agricultural biodiversityincludes 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 tosustainable development has three interconnected elements. The first is recognizing thecontribution that agricultural biodiversity makes to livelihoods (especially for the rural poor)

INTRODUCTION 3

and determining how to support and integrate diversity maintenance more fully intoagricultural production. The second is understanding the contribution that diversity makes tohealthy agro-ecosystem function and identifying the key aspects of diversity management thatcan support this. The third element requires that this understanding of the contribution ofagricultural biodiversity to sustainable development is integrated into national and internationaldevelopment policies.

Research is required in all these three areas, to ensure that agricultural biodiversity isoptimally 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 diversitymakes key contributions to sustainable production in regard to these three elements.

Research issues and concernsRenewed emphasis is needed on research aimed at addressing food security and sustainablelivelihood issues, with a strong development orientation. This will require taking integratedapproaches, with strong and strategic partnerships across key stakeholder groups.

The areas of research that would require attention in this strategic area could include thefollowing:

• Identification and characterization of particular African food resources, of known andpotential value, especially in rural and indigenous communities

• Laboratory analyses of nutrient, functional and safety properties of the selected plantsand foods

• On-farm and community-based activities, aimed at improvement of householdnutritional 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 onbiotechnology, 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 andordinary consumers in many countries are becoming vociferous in warning of possible dangersfrom GM crops and the need for caution - at least in their introduction. The basis of theirconcerns ranges from challenges to the scientific assumptions of the technologies, throughsuspicions on the motivations of the biotechnology industry, to arguments that such meddlingwith the genetic make up of plants may have hidden dangers for human health and theenvironment. 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 engineeredgenes - 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 athreat to wild and cultivated plant populations.

Another concern is that plants modified to contain genes from crop disease viruses mightexchange these genes with other viruses, generating entirely new viral strains with unpredictableproperties.

An area also of disquiet is the likely increased loss of biodiversity as a result of the introductionof GM crops. At present, many small farmers in developing countries maintain a rich diversityof plant varieties, and there is uncertainty on how the introduction of GM crops will influencethis diversity. It is feared that the promotion of GM crops is likely to increase the tendency ofmonocropping with a limited range of genetically uniform commercial varieties. If the localvarieties around the world are lost as a result of the spread of commercial varieties, the rangeof 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 promotedprimarily by private corporations, and that with recent consolidations in the ‘life industry’


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 developmentof biotechnology, especially ion relation to GMOs. Indeed the CGIAR Future Harvest centreshave taken the policy position of not doing any genetic modification-related research or use inany country that has not established a regulatory framework. Two essential elements in theregulatory mechanisms for GMOs are Biosafety regulations, and Intellectual Property Rights(IPR).

The potential contributions of the broader biotechnological applications for the advancementof 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 severalbiotechnology applications that are relatively cost-effective, have very low environmental risksand are not subject to Intellectual Property Rights or related regimes. Indeed, most of them arereadily available and their protocols are published and are already in the public domain andare being actively used in research. In most developing countries, however, there is a generallack of awareness at all levels, on the potential of biotechnology. This is particularly serious atthe policy makers’ level, as it does influence the release of resources for the promotion of thetechnology. This needs to be addressed.

Although the expertise and infrastructural developments in molecular biotechnology arestill in their infancy stages in developing countries and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, manycountries 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 Africancountries 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.

INTRODUCTION 5

Opening Session Presentations

Opening RemarksBy Professor Ratemo Michieka, Director General, NEMA

At the Regional consultations on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for development in Eastern andSouthern 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 someopening 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 warmwelcome 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 topicthat is gaining a lot of prominence in International, Regional and National sustainabledevelopment 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 selectedcrops and animals for favorable traits using their traditional knowledge.

Later development in science introduced technologies such as tissue culture and embryotransfer 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 characteristicsand move them within and across genomes thus creating transgenic crops, animals andproducts.

This technology is now increasing being applied in Agriculture, Human health and theenvironment in different parts of the world.

Application of the technology has raised a lot of debate because while its potentialcontribution to agriculture, human, health and the environment are recognized, there arepotential 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, onepromoting and the other opposed to its application.This status has been fuelled by the way the two sides of the debate conduct their debates. Eachside 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 theirexperiences and concerns.


Distinguished Participants,My hope is that you will discuss the issues proposed into the programme thoroughly andopenly to ensure that our region approaches genetic engineering from an informed point ofview that is home grown.

In conclusion I wish to once again thank the organizers for inviting me and I wish you all afruitful discussion.

Thank you.

OPENING SESSION PRESENTATIONS 7

The Conference Segment

Fifteen paper presentations were made, in which the presenters shared their views on the roleof 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 publishedin the Proceedings of the Consultation. This synthesis report presents the main outcomes ofthe meeting including the issues raised, the main elements of the discussion andrecommendations.

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 chosento reflect the range of perspectives on GE/GMOs with a focus on the agricultural aspects ofdevelopment in Africa. The papers presented (in Ms PowerPoint) were:

1. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Beyond the War of Words by Terri Raney, FAO2. GMOs in Agriculture: Needs and Alternatives by Hans Herren, ICIPE3. 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 ongoingdebate. The first paper was largely based on the FAO Report—The State of Food and Agriculture2003-04: Agricultural Biotechnology Meeting the Needs of the Poor? Noting the gains attributed togenetically modified crops, such as reduced use of pesticides, increase in agricultural productionand 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 notGMO-specific. The author recommended that genetic modification/genetic engineering shouldbe allowed to complement other research such as plant breeding and IPM.

Taking a more cautious position, the second presenter cautioned against a ‘sledgehammerapproach’ in which GE/GMOs are seen as the main answer for dealing with the problemsfacing agriculture and health. He felt that there are several alternative options to GE/GMOsthat were not being seriously supported, while over-whelming emphasis appears to be goingtowards supporting GMOs (especially by the private sector). He preferred to treat GE as onetool among many in a toolbox. Observing that many factors work together to cause foodinsecurity in Africa the paper suggested that toolmakers should also work together to findintegrated solutions that could avoid the risks associated with GMOs. The author noted thatGMO technology was in its infancy and too little research and risk assessment had been doneon it. It could have potential benefits but it also had threats and risks, which need to be takeninto 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-scalefarmer, the prohibitive cost of GE seeds, the suspect rush to get African countries to accept thistechnology, the effect on biodiversity and the general consequences to human health and theenvironment.

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 thatthis set a good atmosphere for dialogue.

• The issue of Africa having to “negotiate on an empty stomach” was raised. The questionwas: ‘what should Africa do under such circumstances?’ The recommendation was that


in any negotiations African policymakers should try as much as possible to look beyondthe current situation of hunger, and address what is the best long-term interest of thecontinent.

• There was concern that genetic modification/genetic engineering reduced the optionsand choices available to the African farmer. It was decided that this issue would requirefurther analysis and clarification.

• Resistance and resilience of ecosystems was discussed and clarified. It was explainedthat it is easier to damage a system with low resistance—the potential to withstanddamage. Resilience is the ability of the system to recover from shock or damage. It wasunderscored 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 consumerinformation available in relation to GMOs. Although some independent risk assessmentresearch had been done, the long-term effects of GMOs in agriculture, health and theenvironment remained largely unknown.

• The fate of the small-scale farmer was also discussed as their special needs appeared tobe marginalized or unattended as appeared to be the case in the FAO report. There wasneed to target not only farmer problems but also the main food crops of Africanimportance such as maize and bananas. There is need to move from general talk totalking about individual or particular GM crops.

• It was observed that terminator technology, transgenic plants, and gene flow carriedrisks that needed to be researched.

THE CONFERENCE SEGMENT 9

Session 3: GMOs for Development - The Potential Scenarios inAgriculture and Human Health

This session was designed to further argue the case for GE/GMOs, by highlighting positiveaspects of the technology, as seen from different technology experiences. Four papers, listedbelow, were presented (in Ms PowerPoint) in the session.

1. Biotechnology and Human Development: Health, Agriculture and Environment Aspects by DrMpoko Bokanga, AATF

2. Progress and Constraints with the Development of GM Fruit Crops at the Agricultural ResearchCouncil, 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 opportunitiesinherent in GE/GMOs, and the need to research and respond to the specific needs of the Africansmall-scale farmers. Recounting the history of biotechnology, the first presentation made threemajor observations: first, that cultural and ethical issues, food and environmental safety andthe suspect role of multinational corporations dominated the biotechnology debate; secondthat the application of biotechnology in medicine and industry had not attracted as muchcontroversy as it had done in agriculture; and third, that the debate of the effects on theenvironment was largely speculative. In relation to food safety the author stressed the needfor adequate labeling of GM products, but stressed that genetic engineering was an importanttechnology that needed to be explored and exploited for development in Africa.

The second presentation outlined the ongoing GE experiments at the Agricultural ResearchCouncil (ARC) in South Africa. ARC was working on GMOs with fruit crops as a way to combatdisease resistance experienced with conventional fruit production techniques. It was reportedthat ARC has developed single cell regeneration techniques. Gene cloning work was reportedto be going on with different genes being used to produce transgenic fruits. Experiments withcloned apples and strawberries had successfully reached the stage of greenhouse and fieldtrials 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 pointedout that support for agricultural research was declining and that access to technology wasincreasingly hindered by IPR related issues. There was therefore need for IPR regimes andinstitutions to provide technology stewardship.

As background, the third presenter informed the participants that statistics indicated a fallingcereal yield for Africa. Bt maize was therefore projected as a technology that held great potentialfor the control of maize stemborers. It was reported that CIMMYT and KARI had been workingon a 5-year project on developing insect resistant maize for Africa, as a way of combating theserious pest problems particularly in low potential areas that experienced both drought andpests. 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 muchlower aflatoxin levels. Its risks included possible development of resistance in the target insectsand possible gene flow into wild relatives of maize.

The fourth presentation highlighted the great potential of biotechnology (including geneticengineering) for human health. It demonstrated how biotechnology could be used to improvethe nutritional content of foods, create bioreactors for pharmaceutical industry and engineervaccines against diseases. Risks associated with the technology included microbialcontamination, integration into the human genome, allergy and auto-antibodies. The meeting


was informed that in Uganda biotechnology application had been accepted officially and alreadythere had been gains through agro-based genetic modification/genetic engineering. Howeverthere was still a general lack of awareness among the population. He called upon scientists tostrengthen public awareness about this GE technology that is said to hold the potential tobreak 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 theexploitation of its good side. For instance, nuclear technology could be used to createdevastating bombs but at the same time that technology is also positively exploited inX-ray and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). It is therefore risky to advocate for totalrejection 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 notlimited to the laboratory. If laboratory-based results are generalized, scenarios such aswas experienced in the case of the Monarch butterfly may arise. In the case of thedevelopment of Monarch butterfly, the scientists did not adequately relate the researchto the fields and natural ecology. Details on the Monarch butterfly can be found at thewebsite: http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/monarch-Bt-ISB.htm

• There was extensive discussion on the issues of regulatory regimes as a constraint. Issuesof who owns what, marketing, the cumbersomeness and costliness of the processes inIPR were highlighted as issues that would challenge the resource-poor farmer.

• African countries were urged to apply the precautionary principle appropriately to protecttheir interest. The key question could be, ‘how can we access and use agriculturaltechnologies to solve our problems?’ rather than a blanket judgment on whether thetechnology is good or bad. Africa should not allow western debate to slow down theapplication of GE/GMOs in solving Africa’s problems.

• Concern was expressed that scientists do not normally listen to the views of the commonman in connection with GE/GMOs. It was clarified that if proper legal and regulatoryinfrastructures 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 scientistsalone. If scientists look down upon those who ask questions then they are not goodscientists. It is important for the scientist to explain what they are doing to the laymanwho pays for the science through tax.

• Scientists would need to create awareness through public debate and discussions withdifferent stakeholders and through a concerted programme for building publicknowledge and confidence in relation to GE/GMOs.

• An important thing noted from the research going on in was that GE is a very expensivetechnology. 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 researchcould be used to greater and more useful effect in other areas of agricultural research.


Session 4: Alternative Viewpoints on GMOs - Risks and ConcernPerspectives

The two principal papers in this session were selected to provide further information andevidence on the potential risks and negative aspects of GE/GMOs. The session was intendedto provide further space for the voicing of concerns and the expression of alternative viewpointsin relation to GE/GMOs. The outcome of a pre-workshop electronic questionnaire survey thatwas 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 inTanzania by Ms Salome Luhasi, ENVIROCARE

2. South Africa: What Africa Can Learn from Seven Years of Growing GE Crops by Ms ElfriedaPschorn-Strauss, Biowatch-South Africa

3. Report of an IDRC/IPGRI Pre-Workshop Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering andGenetically Modified Organisms for Development in Eastern and Southern Africa by DrChristopher K. Ngichabe, ASARECA

The first paper highlighted the importance and potential of organic farming and low-externalinput-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 linkingbetween producers and processors, as alternative pathways to GE/GMOs. There was concernover 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 addressissues of food security related to problems of HIV/AIDS, climatic variations and naturalcalamities.

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 thereliability of data indicating that there was a 30% increase in yields and a significant reductionin 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 Africaneeds GE. It was clear that GE reduces the farmers’ options and yet does not address thefarmers’ priority problems such as lack of access to credit, and climatic hazards. Farmers alsostill have to use pesticides for other pests. Data from the author revealed that the reduction inthe use of pesticides was so slight that farmers had been left in debt and that many had refusedto continue with the GM cotton.

The last paper of the session was a report on the pre-workshop survey conducted to obtaininputs from a cross section of stakeholders, including some participants at the workshop. Twohundred 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 inESA. It was noted that just to assess one product it would cost about US$40000. The majorityof respondents reckoned that the technology has a role to play but recommended that countriesshould put in place measures to address associated risks. They were, however, concerned thatGE was driven by multinationals for profits and not meant for small farmers. Food-safetyissues and conservation of biodiversity were raised as other major concerns that needed to beaddressed. Researchable needs on GE/GMOs identified included: food-safety, environmentalimpacts, 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 tooexpensive and big companies tend to become monopolies.


• Organic farming is useful but is a slow reaction to Africa’s urgent problems. Today itcannot produce enough food for Africa. However, it is a sustainable way for long-termfood security.

• It was pointed out that FAO data on performance of GM crops did not reflect the lastthree seasons affected by drought. It was revealed that Biowatch had data, showing thatGE 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 alternativepathways proposed. There was fear that the use of botanicals to control pests and diseasesmay not be sustainable. Participants also lamented the prohibitive costs of organicallygrown products. It was explained that the high inspection and certification charges leviedby external agencies made the organic products expensive. However, in Tanzania,standards for organic products were reported to be in place and TANCERT (TanzaniaCertification Association) had been legally registered and would be officially launchedin 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 thatAfrica needs GE. It was recalled that the Roundup Ready (RR) Soya in Argentina led toconcentration 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 oftensign contracts they do not understand. Knowledge privatization was also identified as abig 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 thatdecisions to give official government permits were based on company risk assessmentdata.


Session 5: Policy Issues and Concerns – Biosafety and IPRs

This session was devoted to reviewing some of the policy and legislation aspects and instrumentswith relevance for GE/GMO development, testing, use or regulation. Special emphasis wasgiven to the issues of biosafety and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Four papers werepresented (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 actionby Mr Ronald Naluwairo

3. ISD’s role in creating awareness of the challenges of biosafety among critical stakeholders inAfrica by Dr Dereje Gebre Michael

4. Implications of IPR protection on acquisition, development and applications of biotechnology forthe African farmer by Dr Patricia Kameri-Mbote

The first presentation was based on the experience of UNEP/GEF in capacity building forthe implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). Participants were informedthat CPB went into force on 11 September 2003 with 107 parties. It was underscored that theidea of CPB was to embrace the benefits but at the same time ensure adequate safety. The roleof GEF is to assist countries to prepare for the implementation of CPB in their local contexts bydesigning National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs), assist in their implementation andestablishment of infrastructure for the Biosafety Clearing House (BCH).

The second presentation noted that African countries were at different stages of biosafetypolicy development, and that the speed of development depended much on whether a countryis reactionary or proactive or whether it is just jumping on the bandwagon or succumbing topressure 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 publicparticipation and encouraging African countries to be innovators and not mere users of thetechnology.

The third presenter informed the participants that the major involvement of the Institute forSustainable Development (ISD) with biosafety was in the advocacy that led to a collectiveAfrican decision in June 2003 to endorse Africa-wide capacity building in biosafety in order tostrengthen the abilities of AU Member States to deal with biosafety issues. They recommendedthat the awareness campaign should continue among all stakeholders on issues of biotechnologyespecially GE and its regulations.

The last presenter, a lawyer and academician, drew scenarios that demonstrated the dilemmaof the African small-scale farmer and traditional healer in the face of IPR. She guided theparticipants through the various forms of IPRs and related international protocols referring tothe complex picture as the ‘global IPR maze.’ She stressed the need for regional and nationalregimes 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 instrumentsexisted but that there was little overall coherence. They observed that this is likely tocause confusion at country level. Such protocols included the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety etc.

• It was the shared view that there was need to develop regional and national regimes insub-Saharan Africa. Under the umbrella of instruments endorsed at the internationallevel, each country would need to address its national issues and craft suitable legal,


regulatory and property rights framework. Also required was the development of suigeneris legislation on ownership, control and access.

• There was general agreement to the need for communication at all levels—the level ofthe scientists, the policy level and at the community level. It was repeatedly emphasizedthat there was need to inform the public and to harvest the voices of the communitiesand do all in a gender sensitive mode.


Workshop Segment (Working Groups)

The overall goal of the working group segment was to enable further discussion on the keyissues, addressed from different perspectives, and to clarify the GE/GMO debate as it relatesto development problems within the ESA region. The working groups were also to identifypossible avenues for work on GE/GMOs and recommend priority areas for research, capacitybuilding, and the way forward.

Three working groups were created to specifically represent three different viewpoints relatedto 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 effectivelytowards 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 mostcost effective, relevant or safe pathway for future development given the reality of constraints we arefaced 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 addressingproblems at community level will work unless the necessary socio cultural & policy environment iscreated and taken into consideration.

This Working Group was to consider socio-cultural/economic and policy environment issuesand processes that would need to be considered along with the debate on suitability (or not) ofGE/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 toagriculture, 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 thehypothesis

iv. Suggest research & capacity building questions that need to be addressed in relation tothe hypothesis and the technology(ies)

v. Suggest an action plan for moving the process forward for the achievement of the essenceof 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/GMOsfor Sustainable Development in the ESA Region

Potential BenefitsTo strengthen its hypothesis the group thought of the potential of GE/GMOs to produce droughtand pest resistant crops as well as nutritionally enriched varieties. This would be a welcomeanswer to the low productivity in African agriculture, recurrent droughts, and widespreadpests and disease vectors. It could bring marginal lands into productivity. It would also reduce


the widespread use of pesticides. The application of GE/GMOs additionally has the potentialto forge a closer link between agriculture and industry. Modern biotechnology would alsomake 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 animalhealth, the environment and industry, referring to them as “the niche for GE innovation forAfrica.”

• 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 andweather 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/GMOsThe discussion of risks and concerns and challenges centred on the following risks andconstraints:

1. IPRs – power and controlThe group observed that 99% of patents related to GE/GMOs belonged to foreign multinationalsthat dominate the market and R&D. The farmer has to pay expensive licensing fees. As control

WORKSHOP SEGMENT (WORKING GROUPS) 17

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 regionaland local regulatory framework and instruments in Africa to respond to the international andglobal protocols.

2. Loss of Biodiversity in AgricultureThere was fear of gene flow to and cross-pollination of indigenous plants, and farmers’ varietiesthat could contaminate important plants and crops such as wheat, coffee and sorghum. Therewould be reduction in diversity, increase in genetic erosion and loss of local varieties of seedsand knowledge. The group also had fears over the possible impact on non-targets.

3. Food and Environmental SafetyRecognition was also given to the inadequacy of research on safety aspects of GE/GMOs andits products especially in agriculture. The digestibility, toxicity, allergenicity and nutritionalaspects of GE/GMO products have not been adequately assessed. It would be imprudent tojust 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 proteinsreacting with other proteins. There was also fear of the evolution of antibiotic resistant genesand resistance to GE crops.

A need was felt for more targeted research on these issues in Africa, in order to reassure thepopulation of the safety of the technology for food and the environment.

4. Human and Technical CapacitySub-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 effectsof GE/GMOs. Dependency on data from other environments is risky. Few countries haveprioritized capacity building and developed a strategic plan on GE/GMOs. There is a shortageof 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 hadbeen created.

Potential barriers/challengesThe group came up with the following matrix of challenges to GE/GMOs and strategiesproposed to address the challenges.

S/N Barrier/Challenge Strategy

1 Lack of public Programmes to disseminate information on a large scale, includingawareness educational programmes in universities and schools

2 Inadequate or lack of (i) Development of effective regulatory and legal frameworks,regulation and legal policies, and strategic plans using among others the AU modelframeworks, policy law as resourcesand strategies (ii) Capacity building in development and implementation of the

effective regulatory frameworks, appropriate policies andstrategic plans

3. Lack human resource (i) Training to build a critical mass of expertise along the productioncapacities 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 researchinfrastructure for GE (ii) Establishment of strategic Centers of Excellence in the regionsresearch (iii) Capacity building for maintenance and equipment


5 Inadequate networking (i) Establishment of data bases for experts, infrastructure, andresearch 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% GDPundertake research (ii) Capacity building in craftsmanshipwithin the region (iii) Lobby private sector and development partners to support

R&D(iv) Provision of policy environment for venture capitals to stimulate

entrepreneurship

7 Negative perception (i) Capacity building to sieve and package balanced information forabout GE different segments of society

(ii) Establishment of an information centre to provide balancedinformation and manage propaganda

(iii) Conduct surveys to establish GE perceptions(iv) Public lecture sand round table discussions

8 Intellectual Property (i) Capacity building for all stakeholders to raise awareness on IPRRights (IPR) policies mattersand 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 geneticresources

(v) Lobby governments to enact appropriate national IP policies(vi) Get into partnerships with brokers such as AATF, ISAAA

9 Inadequate (i) Private extension servicestechnology extension (ii) Capacity building in technology transferand 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/issuesBefore the group itemized its research questions they suggested the following as guidingprinciples 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 onpriority farmer needs. Research opportunities must be linked with farmers; only afterextensive consultation can one make a list of what their needs are. People trained towork with farmers should extract research questions from farmers and translate them


for the GE/GMO scientists. Such research should, however, cover the three majorsectors—agriculture, health and environment.

(ii) Research to develop a set of criteria and indicators to evaluate appropriateness, impacton environment and food security

(iii)Improvement of productivityResearch 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 issuesThe following capacity building issues were identified for strengthening capacities and expertisein the region:

• Conduct a needs assessment on capacity building, and build inventory of what existsand 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 geneticresource centres/banks)

• Train a core team of lawyers to assist in dealing with IPR issues and policy including theAU 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 planThe following were identified as the major projects that should be undertaken in ESA countries.

1. Awareness ProgrammeMonitor and enhance the circulation of information on GE/GMOs. The information shouldbe 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 regionalnewsletters, broadband connectivity and websites.


2. Stocktaking and Inventory of ResourcesAs priority survey, characterize and record local genetic resources in database. It is importantto know what is available before doing impact studies of new GMOs. Wild relatives shouldbe included in the inventory. Stocktaking should include evaluation of the nutritional valueof 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 assessmentsAssess and monitor impact on environment, socio-economics. Risk assessments mustinclude economic ethical, social and cultural dimensions. There should be in-depth studyof the complex ecosystems in Africa.

5. Public and public involvementLobby governments and private sector to scale up investment in R&D. Governments shouldenact appropriate national IP policies and provide an environment that would stimulateentrepreneurship. Get into partnerships with brokers such as AATF and ISAAA and developprivate-public partnerships.Establish science parks (technology incubation systems) to catalyze commercialization oftechnologies.

Working Group II: Alternative Model or Pathway for Development andAnalysis of Perceived Risks and Uncertainties in the Use of GMOs

GE/GMOs—not a silver bulletThe group expressed concern that so much resources and attention is going into GE/GMOactivities, even though the proponents of the technology keep saying that they do not see thetechnology as a panacea or silver bullet.

In support of the hypothesis the group gave examples of the various priority problem areaswhere GE could, at best, only partially contribute to addressing the problem. GE was seen asan alternative, not mainstream, to the various biotechnologies and other technologies availablefor agricultural development in Africa. The group also outlined other areas where GE hadnothing to offer in addressing problems. African problems to which GE could only offer partialsolutions include pests and diseases. Problems to which GE had no answer, and in some casesonly 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. Forinstance, irrigation is a more effective answer to erratic climates in Africa. Organic farming is abetter solution to the problem of soil exhaustion than GE. The cost of GE/GMOs estimated atUS$1 million per year per product makes it too costly to be cost-effective in relation to alternativetechnologies.

Risks and concernsGE/GMOs also come with risks:

• Unlike many costly Green Revolution ‘clean ups’ it will not be possible to recall or redressGE contamination. For example:• Starlink has contaminated maize in the USA• In Canada there has been contamination of organic Canola


• Organic farmers cannot be certified organic if their crops are GE contaminated. Thismeans that the comparative and competitive advantage of many African small-scalefarmers is discarded rather than used to build an economically viable future. Evenexporters of conventional products have been told they will lose their markets. Forexample, 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 thesmall-scale farmers in Africa see as a right

• GE may destroy the mode of production that sustains over 70% of the small-scale farmersin 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/GMOsThe group felt there were several alternatives to GE/GMOs. However, the problem is thatthese alternatives are often under-explored, under-exploited and under-funded, thus makingthem appear ineffective. Some of these potential and existing alternatives were suggested asfollows:

• Where GE is used to create herbicide tolerant crops, there are non-GE herbicide tolerancetechnologies. 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 tosulphonylurea herbicides

Furthermore, herbicide tolerance is an advantage where herbicides are cheap. But neitherare 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 stalkborerand bollworm at least in the short run. It is however quite pest specific and may alsocause 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 Eastand Central Africa but it is serious in South Africa. Since Bt is very specific new GEproducts are needed for each species. Bt loses out when compared with Napier grassand silver leaf, which are more robust, holistic solutions.

• In relation to drought resistance, conventional breeding techniques have been successfulwith 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 quantitativecharacteristic and as such very difficult to isolate “a gene”—GE cannot deal effectively


with quantitative traits. GE only raises production through removing constraints (pests,weeds). More effective alternatives consist of systems that assist in the long term buildup of soil fertility and the effective use of moisture and nutrients, crop rotations andmixed cropping systems

• With regards to changing the nutritional value, GE has only achieved theoretical successin rice. For instance, it requires 9kg of rice to supply adequate vitamin A. Yet vitamin Ais 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 solutionsThe group members pointed out that it was wrong to consider the non-GE approaches as ‘thealternative strategies’. These non-GE approaches are the mainstream and standard approaches.GE strategies were rather the ‘alternative’ approaches. It was, nonetheless, acknowledged thatconventional and other mainstream technologies related to agriculture, health, and environmentalso faced serious challenges and barriers that would need to be addressed. Some of thesechallenges and suggested answers are:

• Lack of adequate human capacity in organics and the extension systems in NARS. Thiswould call for capacity building through training.

• There are hardly any comparative quantitative studies comparing GE research toconventional and organic research. The group recommended such comparativequantitative research.

• The global regulatory picture was characterized as that of incoherent, unenforced andoften non-existent biosafety regulations. Against this picture the group recommendedthe development of effective biosafety regulations and national frameworks for IPR.

• Failure to preserve indigenous knowledge was a major problem. Participants agreedthat 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. Aswas successfully done in Zambia governments should move to deliberately subsidizethe farmer.

• The failure of African governments to involve farmers in policy formulation concernedthe group. The governments of Africa would need to work out mechanisms of involvingboth the big and small-scale farmers in the formulation of policy.

• It was noted that local communities resisted dietary diversity and depended on a fewstaples. It was, therefore, recommended that there should be a campaign to increasedietary diversity and its local acceptance.

• The general lack of infrastructure including access roads and micro finance was alsonoted. African governments were urged to improve on the road networks in the ruralareas. 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 effortsagainst these diseases—the preventive including awareness campaigns, GE vaccinesand the curative such as the antiretroviral treatment should not be spared. Governmentsshould endeavour to make rural life attractive by providing infrastructure includingroads, electricity and water.

• The frequent droughts and other climatic distresses were noted. The participantsexpressed the need to reduce dependence on seasonal rains that may fail and installsystems of water drainage and preservation and exploitation of rivers and lakes forirrigation.


Research and capacity building issues1. State-of-the-art studies indicating what options the small-scale farmer has2. Scientific evaluation (costs and benefits) of alleged GE successes, e.g. the case of

Makhathini Bt cottonThis would need a good experimental design to facilitate the investigation of social,environmental and economic results, the subsidies given, and the actual yields. Thealternatives being compared should also be clear.

3. There is need for environmental impact assessments for GE4. Comparative research should be undertaken on how organic farming can feed the world5. Research is also needed to examine the feasibility of coexistence and whether or not it is

possible to maintain GM-free agriculture over time6. 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 practices8. Promotion of biological pest control methods including IPM and natural soil fertility

improvement methods9. Adopt a participatory approach to facilitate capacity building among farmers through

such events as field days, food fairs, local radio, agricultural days and farmer workshops10. Support installation of national regulatory frameworks relating biosafety and IPR11. Investigate the effectiveness of refugia or buffer zones as a strategy12. Studies to assess the potential impact of GM crops on cultural liberties in smallholder

and indigenous farming communities13. Study on what current information is available on the non-GM applications of

biotechnology (i.e. tissue culture, DNA markers, apoximes, etc) and their potentialrelevance for smallholder farmers in the South. What is the experience with those non-GM biotech applications over the past two decades?

Action planGroup II identified six major action areas namely market, agrobiodiversity and IPR, soil andpest research, environment, GE regulation and mode of research. The recommended actionsfor 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 provisionon farmers’ rights.

• National IPR regimes should be put in place and should be friendly especially to thesmall-scale farmer and biodiversity

3. Soil and Pest Research• Promote soil fertility through such techniques as nitrogen fixation, rhizobium breeding


and practical use, Azotobacter and a whole range of nitrogen fixers, phosphateavailability, nutrient cycling etc.

• Promote biological pest control methods, IPM and use of local plants such as theNeem tree, Syringa, Sun Hemp, Velvet and Dolichos beans etc. and undertake localvalidation 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 PolicyEnvironment Issues Related to GE/GMOs

The test is at the community levelThe group hypothesis was that “Neither GE/GMOs nor any other technological innovation addressingproblems at community level will work unless the necessary socio cultural and policy environment iscreated or taken into consideration.” To advance this hypothesis the group thought of the variouspriority problem areas that GE and other technological innovations could only partially addressor not address at all.

The group gave some examples of certain technological innovations that had been rejectedbecause 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 offerthe long stalks needed for construction of shelters. Also, for those who used fields astoilets 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 theirhypothesis. It was noted that broad barriers to technology acquisition and transfer would impacton GE/GMO and other technology adoption. For instance:

• Infrastructure for technology acquisition and diffusion is generally absent for alltechnologies especially GE.


• 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, andethical and religious considerations.

Barriers/challenges to be considered in relation to the enabling environmentThe group identified the following as barriers, concerns and risks that needed to be consideredin the further development of GE/GMOs

• Lack of Markets and Other InfrastructureAfrican markets are inadequate and ill prepared for new products. There is need for newoutlets 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 ParticipationThere is no bottom-up approach to technology development and there is a general lackof awareness among the farmers. The general failure of the extension systems in theregion has denied the farmer access to information about new technologies. There isneed for information and technology repackaging to suit the farmers. Pubic awarenessshould be a major objective as well as creation of an environment that is conducive topublic involvement.

• Customary and Cultural Norms and ValuesSuch possible causes of rejection included gender stereotyping, religious issues, andland tenure and land use systems. It would be important therefore to link research tolocal needs, and to involve the public in technology development and assessment.

• Policy ConstraintsIncoherent and uncoordinated policies and sometimes absence of policy were identifiedas major barriers to technology adoption and use. Overlapping mandates betweendifferent institutions and arms of government often cause confusion and frustration.Lack of well thought out regulatory frameworks including IPR was a continuing problemthat 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 toprotect indigenous knowledge.

• Poor Governance and Lack of Political CommitmentSuggested solutions to this problem included creation of awareness among political andother leaders, lobbying and ensuring that research would be linked to national needs.

• Labour constraintsMajor causes of labour problems in the rural areas are the HIV/AIDS pandemic andrural-urban migration. Not only should the ongoing anti-AIDS campaigns be intensifiedespecially in the rural areas but governments should endeavour to make rural areasattractive too live in.

• Concerns over Sustainability, Food Security, Sovereignty and Agrobiodiversity. Thiswould call for the involvement of the local public, linking of technology to localenvironment and needs and proper assessment of impact before technology developmentand application.

• Inadequate R and D CapacityAs an answer, training was recommended at all levels (technical, legal, scientific andsocial). The group also recommended pooling of resources, networking, establishmentof centers of excellence and creation of a conducive work environment.


Research and capacity building questions/issuesThe 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 andadvocacyA. Capacity building on how to carry out participatory research in the following areas

• Research on locally available technologies (ITK), socio-cultural norms and valuesof specific areas

• Impact assessment of various technologies on socio-economic, environment,cultural issues

• Capacity building on information packaging and communication for specificstakeholders (communities, policymakers and development workers)

B. Participatory research on needs assessment at the community and national levels

2. Governance and enabling policy working environmentA. Status and gaps in policy environmentB. Capacity building on biosafety and IPR at all levels

Action plan1. 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. GovernanceActivities:• To prepare toolkit on advocacy strategies for appropriate and sustainable technology

diffusion• Advocating for appropriate policies for sustainable biodiversity management

3. Capacity BuildingActivities:• 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


Conclusion

The Nairobi consultation on GMOs has not been the first one in the region to deliberate ongenetic engineering issues and concerns. It is, however, different from the others in that it didnot focus on just one dimension of the debate in relation to the technology. The consultationmade available a platform to different categories of stakeholders and interest groups to discusstheir perspectives and concerns in relation to the GE/GMO technology, and identify possibleareas for research.

The consultation was not aimed at arriving at consensus on whether or not geneticengineering was good or bad for Africa. What it did was to analyze and present differentoptions and viewpoints and seek to enhance understanding across the various positions. Thethree hypotheses that were addressed by the three working groups enabled all shades of opinionto be examined and explored. Based on the outcomes of the group analyses, the followinggeneral conclusions can be made:

• There are very strong opinions held by respective camps in relation to the subject. It willnot be easy to change people’s perspectives and position on the issues; however increaseddialogue and communication across the various divides can be helpful in bridging thedifferences and enhancing understanding;

• Some common ground was identified. All participants recognized some potential forGMOs in development, albeit to different degrees of certainty and scope. They, however,also recognized that there were certain risks and unknowns associated with thetechnology;

• Participants, however, differed on the issue of “so what?” Whereas some were of theopinion that the risks were manageable and that they should not hold back furtherdevelopment and exploitation of the technology, some others were of the opinion thatthe risk was too great, especially as it relates to possible irreversible damage to humanhealth and the environment. These others felt that there was no justification for GMOsto be released for use, until further tests proved their safety over the long-term;

• Between the two extreme viewpoints, there were also intermediate and mixedperspectives. There were those who felt that the issue of GE/GMOs would need to beassessed on a case-by-case basis, and not to be lumped together as just one issue of goodor bad. Expressed also, was the feeling that any assessment of GE/GMOs should not bedone until the necessary socio-cultural and policy framework and structures have beenaddressed, with full considerations given to the rights of communities and farmers;

• Biosafety was also perceived quite differently. Whereas some participants saw it as themechanism for monitoring and managing any possible risk that could arise from use ofthe technology, others saw it only as a smart way of getting GMOs introduced throughthe back door. The latter felt that developing countries were not going to have thenecessary expertise, skills and funds to adequately monitor the system, and implementany regulatory processes that are developed as part of the biosafety and other policyframeworks;

• A number of research and capacity building areas identified by the working groups werefound 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.


• A number of research and capacity building needs were however specific and dependenton 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 levelsin this regard. The policy and legislation aspects, including issues of IntellectualProperty Rights, Access and Benefit Sharing, and capacities in policy analysis andformulation were also listed as essential areas for research and capacity building.They also advocated for the establishment of Centers of Excellence for geneticengineering on the continent.

• Participants who supported hypothesis 2 (strong concerns against GMOs), on theother hand, advocated for increased funding for research on the non-GMO alternativesystems. They called for more research in targeted conventional breeding for specificconditions; more focus on biological control and integrated pest management;integrated soil fertility management; organic agriculture; supporting agriculturalbiodiversity and promoting dietary diversity to deal with problems of nutrition andhealth. They also called for increased resources for research aimed at reducing croploss through post harvest losses; to improve access of basic materials and resourcesfor smallholder farmers; and to deal with the inequalities in world agriculture andtrade created by the incentives and subsidies given to developed country farmers.

Diverse viewpoints were thus presented. Ultimately however, it is believed that the outcomesof the consultation will contribute towards identification of grounds for joint action and forresearch and capacity building that will promote development and food security in the region.

The Communiqué and Declaration: A Communiqué drafted by the workshop organizersin the course of the consultation, was discussed as a reflection of the overall outcomes of theconsultation. 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 objectivesof the consultation.

It needs to be pointed out that a number of participants, after further reflection on thedocument, asked that their organizations be not associated with the communiqué, for varyingreasons. The said organizations are therefore listed at the bottom of the communiqué, which isattached as an Appendix to this report.

CONCLUSION 29

Appendix 1

Declaration and Communiqué1

Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOS for Development inEastern and Southern AfricaNairobi Safari Club, 20 – 22 September, 2004, Nairobi.

Preamble1. Whereas the Regional Consultation on Genetic Engineering/GMOs for Development in Eastern

and Southern Africa, was organized under the auspices of the International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC), in partnership with the International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute (IPGRI),

2. And whereas various institutions, inter-governmental and regional organisations, farmerorganisations and stakeholders, drawn from National Agriculture Research Systems,Universities, Non-Governmental Organizations, Civil Society, and InternationalAgricultural 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 andunderstanding of different stakeholder perspectives in relation to genetic engineering/GMOs, and identify a possible research and capacity building agenda that could advancethe course of development in the sub-region,

5. In consequence, participants attending the Regional consultation, arrived at conclusionsand 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 Degradationin 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 asmajor ingredients for addressing problems of food and nutritional insecurity, poverty,human health and environmental degradation, and the need to conserve these resourcesand use them sustainably for present and future generations;

8. Aware that biotechnologies have offered solutions in addressing some problems relatedto 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 andmisunderstanding 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 thesub-region are generally low, and that this is not enabling informed dialogue and decisionmaking 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-Strauss2. The Gaia Foundation, UK: represented by Ms Teresa Andersen3. National Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Angola: represented by Mrs Elizabeth Matos4. Mrs Bernadette Lubozhya, Zambia: Agricultural/GMO Consultant


12. Aware also, that a growing number of countries are already embarking on the technologyfor different reasons, in most cases without adequate structures, frameworks andcapacities 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 InternationalTreaty 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 effortsand for collaboration among countries in the conservation and sustainable use of geneticresources, 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 internationalconventions 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 developmenta. The subject of GE/GMOs remains a controversial subject, with deeply held views

and perspectives among different stakeholder groups, on its potential benefitsand risks with respect to development. Increased dialogue and research is thereforeneeded 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 dividein relation to the technology and its role for development. This will require muchinvestment, consultation and dialogue, conducted in an atmosphere oftransparency, accountability and mutual respect.

B. Potential of Biotechnology and GMOs for developmentd. 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 geneticengineering 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-safetyprovisions and with adequate capacities established for their management andmonitoring;

f. Analysis of the feasibility of GMOs should be done along with an assessment ofthe alternative pathways and strategies for development. Such analysis shouldinclude comparison of GE/GMO technologies with other available options;

g. Analysis of GMOs should move from generalities to specifics. There should becase-by-case analysis and focus given to particular GE interventions, e.g. the casesof GE-cotton; Bt-maize; GE-banana; etc.;

h. There is also need for focussed country case studies on experiences andperspectives on GMOs. Such studies will be a resource for other countries;

i. Countries should formulate needs-demand driven assessments for GEinterventions and an action plan for their development, testing and monitoring;

j. Development of effective Biosafety and other policy frameworks should be seenas a necessary prerequisite to any work on GMOs by any country or institution.

C. Alternative Pathways for Developmentk. The consultation recognized the fact that there are a number of sustainable

agriculture approaches that can be strengthened to enhance their capacity for

DECLARATION AND COMMUNIQUÉ 31

contributing to food security. Examples of these are:i. integrated pest and disease managementii. integrated soil fertility managementiii. targeted and participatory plant and animal breedingiv. neglected and underutilized high value cropsv. organic farming

l. It was strongly suggested that these alternative pathway approaches have notreceived the level of resources and funding required to make them attain theirpotential. Increased efforts need to be made to improve research and developmentfunding in sustainable agriculture approaches;

m. There is need for policies, as well as public and private investment to supportthese approaches.

D. Community Involvement Issuesn. 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 emphasison the need to involve communities;

o. The interests of smallholder farmers, relating to seed access and other rights andcontrols with regard to GMO use, need to be studied and made favourable forthe farmer;

p. Provide a range of technical training and awareness to farmers, extension andcommunity workers and consumers, on basic biotechnology, biosafety and GMOassessment and testing.

E. Role of Organizers of Consultationq. 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, andaim at developing research and capacity building actions that will support theappropriate use of biotechnology for development in the sub-region;

r. IDRC and IPGRI should seek partnership and collaboration from all relevantorganizations, including government departments, research institutions (national,regional and international), nongovernmental organizations, civil society, the Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), and other donoragencies, for technical and/or financial support in the implementation of theprogramme of action that will be developed from this consultation.

Developed and Concluded this Twenty Second Day of September, 2004, at Nairobi SafariClub, Nairobi, Kenya.


Appendix 2:

ProgrammeDAY 1: 20 SeptemberSession I. Opening SessionChairperson: Dr Maurice Mbegera, NEMARapporteur: Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton

09.00 – 10.30 Introductory Address Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, IPGRIDOpening remarks of the Chairperson Maurice Mbegera, NEMADWelcome/Opening Remarks Dr Constance Freeman,

IDRC-NairobiMr. Wardie Leppan,IDRC-Ottawa

Introduction of Workshop Purpose, Expectations Dr François Gasengayire,and Programme IDRC- Nairobi /

Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton,IPGRI-SSADr Kwesi Atta-Krah,IPGRI-SSA

Biodiversity, Biotechnology and GMOs:Challenges and Opportunities for Food Securityand Environmental Health in sub-Saharan Africa

10.30 – 11.00 Tea/Coffee Break

Session II. Setting the Stage: Biotechnology and DevelopmentChairperson: Dr Maurice MbegeraRapporteur: Ms Julia Ndungu-Skilton

11.00 – 11.30 Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Beyond Dr Terri Raney, FAO(20 min. the War of Wordspresentation + 10min. discussion)

11.30 – 12.00 GMOs in Sustainable Agriculture: Needs and Dr Hans Herren, ICIPE(20 min. Alternativespresentation + 10min. discussion)

12.00 – 12.30 Why Africa Should Reject GE Crops: Mr Zachary Makanya,(20 min. The Real Issues PELUM-Kenyapresentation + 10min. discussion)

12.30 – 13.00 General Discussion

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch Break

Session III. GMOs for Development: The Potential Scenarios in Agriculture andHuman HealthChairperson: Dr Hermenegilde TwagiramunguRapporteur: Ms Elizabeth Obel Lawson

14.00 – 14.30 Biotechnology and Human Development: Dr Mpoko Bokanga,(20 min. Agriculture, Health and Environment Aspects AATFpresentation + 10min. discussion)

14.30 – 14.50 Progress and Constraints with Development of Dr Hennie du Plessis,Genetically Modified Fruit Crops ARC-South Africa

PROGRAMME 33

14.50 – 15.10 Can Bt Maize Alleviate Poverty in Africa? Dr Hugo De Groote andDr Stephen Ngure Mugo,CIMMYT and KARI

15.10 – 15.30 Discussion


16.00 – 16.30 Biotechnology in Human Health Care: Dr Thomas Egwang,(20 min. GMOs and Other Innovations Medical Biotech. Lab. -presentation +10 Ugandamin. discussion)


18.30 – 20.30 Cocktail Reception

DAY 2: 21 SeptemberSession IV. Alternative Viewpoints on GMOs: Risks and Concern PerspectivesChairperson: Dr Hennie du PlessisRapporteur: Dr Kameswara Rao

08.30 – 08:45 Sustainable Approaches to Agricultural Ms Salome Luhasi,Development and Farmers Perspectives on ENVIROCAREGMOs 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 ASARECAand Genetically Modified Organisms forDevelopment in Eastern and Southern Africa



Session V. Policy Issues and Concerns: Biosafety and IPRsChairperson: Dr Elizabeth MatosRapporteur: 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/GEFpresentation + 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 - Kenyapresentation + 10min. discussion)


13:00 – 14:00 Lunch Break


Working Groups Session I. Synthesis of Issues and ConcernsFacilitators: Group I: Dr C. Ngichabe; Group II: Dr R. Auerbach; Group III: Dr. P. Kameri-MboteRapporteurs: 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 analyzefor 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 andUncertainties in the Use of GMOs

Working Group 3:Socio-Cultural/Economic and Policy EnvironmentIssues 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


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 researchableissues 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 Reports12.00 – 13.00 Discussion

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Break

14:00 – 15:00 Preparation of a Synthesis Report

Closing SessionChairperson: Dr Rose R. KingamukonoRapporteur: Dr Raymond Auerbach

15:00 – 16:00 Presentation of Workshop Dr Kwesi Atta-Krah, IPGRI-Recommendations/Communiqué SSAClosing Remarks Mr Wardie Leppan, IDRC,

Ottawa.

PROGRAMME 35

ANGOLAMs Elizabeth MatosDirectorNational Plant Genetic Resources Centre(NPGRC)P.O. Box 10043, LuandaTel: 244 2 321688/325673E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

BOTSWANADr Deborah D. ShushuSenior LecturerDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of Botswana (UB)Private Bag 0022, GaboroneTel: 267 72218766Fax: 267 3158095E-mail: [email protected]

BURUNDIMs Wivine NtamubanoFaculty of SciencesFaculty of Sciences, Department of BiologyUniversity of BurundiP.O. Box 2700, BujumburaTel: 257 225556/235585Fax: 257 223288E-mail: [email protected]

ETHIOPIAMr Dereje Gebre MichaelProgramme CoordinatorInstitute for Sustainable Development (ISD)P.O. Box 171, code 1110, Addis AbabaTel: 251 1 167406 (office), 251 1 243327Mobile†: 251 9 243327Fax: 251 1 669466E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Mr Yonas Yohannes AbrehamCoordinatorAfrican Biodiversity Network (ABN)P.O. Box 171 code 1110 Addis AbabaTel: 251 1 669467, 251 9 240744Fax: 251 1 669466E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

KENYAMs Charity GatariProgram Officer – Environment and HealthProgramGROOTS KenyaP.O. Box 10320-00100, Nairobi

Tel: 254 20 2718977/573186E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Esther Mwaura-MuiruNational CoordinatorGROOTS KenyaP.O. Box 10320-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 2718977/573186E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Gathuru MburuTel: 254 20 722 250550E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Joseph M. WekundahExecutive DirectorBiotechnology Trust Africa (BTA)P.O. Box 1285-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 600040/603983Fax: 254 20 603358E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Josephine SongaPrincipal Research ScientistKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)Tel: 254 20 4444251E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Margaret WagahLecturerKenyatta UniversityP.O. Box 43844, NairobiTel: 254 20 812385, 254 722 634094E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Maurice O. MbegeraDirector – Compliance & EnforcementNational Environment Management Authority(NEMA)P.O. Box 67839-00200Tel: 254 20 605522/6/7, 254 721 361622/733759744Fax: 254 20 608997, NairobiE-mail: [email protected]

Mr Moses M. ShahaNational ChairmanKenya Small Scale Farmers ForumP.O. Box 388, Kilifi 80108Tel: 254 720 212256, 254 722 685400Fax: 254-41-525408E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix 3: List of Participants


Dr Patricia Kameri-MboteSenior Lecturer and Chair – Department ofPrivate LawFaculty of LawUniversity of NairobiP.O. Box 30197, NairobiTel: 254 20 3754206Fax: 254 20 3744284E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Wanjiru WanyoikeCommunity Initiatives in Agriculture andEnvironment (CINEA)P.O. Box 64145-00620, NairobiTel: 254 20 722 418861E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Zachary MakanyaCountry Desk CoordinatorParticipatory Ecological Land-Use Management(PELUM)-KenyaP.O. Box 1134, ThikaTel: 254 67 31686Fax: 254 67 30055E-mail: [email protected]

Maryam ImbumiKenya Resource Centre for IndigenousKnowledge (KENRIK), National Museums ofKenyaP.O. Box 40658 00100 Nairobi, KenyaTel +254 20 3741673Email: [email protected]

MALAWIMr Patrick MphadzulaSenior Scientific OfficerNational Research Council of Malawi (NRCM)P.O. Box 30745, Lilongwe 3Tel: 265 1 771550Fax: 265 1 772431E-mail: [email protected]

MOZAMBIQUEMr Filipe PequeninoFood Security National CoordinatorActionAid International MozambiqueP.O. Box 2608, MaputoRua Comandante Augusto Cardoso 327/329Tel: 258 1 314342/5, 258 82 309431Fax: 258 1 314346E-mail: [email protected]

RWANDADr Hermenegilde TwagiramunguDirector GeneralInstitut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda(ISAR)P.O. Box 138, ButareTel: 250 530145Mobile: 250-08306961Fax: 250 530145E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

SOUTH AFRICAMs Brenda NdlovuProgramme OfficerGender & Trade Network in Africa (GENTA)P.O. Box 61313, Marshalltown, 2107Tel: 27 11 838 0449Fax: 27 11 832 2665E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Elfrieda Pschorn-StraussResearcherBiowatch South Africa38 Mount Pleasant Street. Darling, 7345Tel: 27 22 492 3426,Mobile: 27 21 447 5939Fax: 27 22 492 3426E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Hennie du PlessisAssistant DirectorARC Infruitec_NietvoorbijPrivate Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599Tel: 27 21 8093474Fax: 27 21 8093491E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Raymond AuerbachDirectorRainman Landcare FoundationP.O. Box 91, Peacevale 3624Tel: 27 31 783 4412, 27 84 567 1250Fax: 27 31 783 4641E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

SWAZILANDDr Abednego M. DlaminiSenior LecturerUniversity of Swaziland (UNISWA)Private Bag, LuyengoTel: 268 603 4608Fax: 268 404 1719E-mail: [email protected]

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 37

TANZANIADr Emmarold MneneyAgricultural Research OfficerMikocheni Agricultural Research Institute(MARI)P.O. Box 6226, Dar es SalaamTel: 255 22 2775663, 255 744 387662Fax: 255 22 2775549E-mail: [email protected], E [email protected]

Dr Rose Rita KingamkonoDirector of Research Coordination andPromotionTanzania Commission for Science andTechnology (COSTECH)P.O. Box 4302, Dar es SalaamTel: 255 22 2700752255 744 769808/741 540860 (mobile)Fax: 255 22 2775313-4E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Salome LuhasiHead of Environment DepartmentEnvironmental, Human Rights Care and GenderOrganization (ENVIROCARE)P.O. Box 9824, Dar es SalaamTel: 255 22 2701407/2775592, 255 744 381170Fax: 255 22 2701407E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

UGANDADr Daphrose GahakwaResearch ScientistNational Agricultural Research Organisation(NARO)Kawanda Agricultural Research InstituteP.O. Box 7065, KampalaTel: 256 41 566102Fax: 256 41 566381E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Ronald NaluwairoResearch FellowAdvocates Coalition for Development andEnvironment (ACODE)P.O. Box 29836, KampalaPlot 96 Kanjokya StreetTel: 256 41 530798Fax: 256 41 530487E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Sam Kuloba WatasaExecutive DirectorUganda Consumers’ Protection Association(UCPA)P.O. Box 2422, KampalaTel: 256 41 234002, 256 71 644655

Fax: 256 41 347395E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Thomas EgwangDirector General and Scientific DirectorMed Biotech Laboratories (MBL)P.O. Box 9364, KampalaTel: 256 41 266746/510245Fax: 256 41 510408E-mail: [email protected]

ZAMBIAMrs Bernadette LubozhyaAgricultural/GMO Consultant (Private)c/o Organic Producers and ProcessorsAssociation of Zambia (OPPAZ)P.O. Box 35317, Kabulonga Rd., Lusaka 10101Tel: 260 1 263070/263065Fax: 260 1 265208E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Clement ChipokoloZambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU)P.O. Box 30395, LusakaTel: 260 1 252677/252649Mobile†: 260 95 752878Fax: 260 1 252648E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

ZIMBABWEMrs Doreen-Shumba MnyulwaExecutive DirectorBTZ–Regional Agricultural and EnvironmentInitiatives Network (BTZ-RAEIN)P.O. Box BW 267, Borrowdale, HarareTel: 263 4 703481/250468Fax: 263 4 250468E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Mr Emmanuel SackeyPatent Examiner (Biochemistry/Biotechnology)African Regional Industrial PropertyOrganisation (ARIPO)11 Natal Road, Belgravia, P.O. Box 4228, HarareTel: 263 4 794065/6Mobile†: 263 11 219103Fax: 263 4 794072/3E-mail: [email protected]


REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONALRESEARCH ORGANISATIONSMs Abigael OdangaProgramme AssistantInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Christopher K. NgichabeRegional Coordinator - Biotechnology andBiosafety ProgramAssociation for Strengthening AgriculturalResearch in East and Central Africa (ASARECA)P.O. Box 765, Plot 5, Mpigi Rd., EntebbeTel: 256 41 322126Fax: 256 41 322593E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Dorcas MwangiProject OfficerConsumer Information Network – Kenya (CIN)P.O. Box 7569-00300, NairobiTel: 254 20 781131Fax: 254 20 781131E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Ms Doris M. LewaProgramme AssistantInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524517/524509Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Dorothy NanzalaProgramme AssistantInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524517/524512Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Ellie OsirMolecular Biology and Biotechnology Unit(MBBU)International Centre of Insect Physiology andEcology (ICIPE)P.O. Box 30772, NairobiTel: 254 20 802501/3/9Fax: 254 20 803360/860110E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs Elizabeth MwanikiScientific AssistantInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524523Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Mrs Elizabeth Obel-LawsonScientific Assistant/Public AwarenessInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524514Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Eric KisianganiProject Manager – Food Security and Dry-landAgriculture ProjectIntermediate Technology Development Group(ITDG) – Eastern AfricaP.O. Box 39493-00623, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713540/2719313Fax: 254 20 2710083E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Hans HerrenDirector GeneralInternational Centre of Insect Physiology andEcology (ICIPE)P.O. Box 30772, NairobiTel: 254 20 802501/3/9Fax: 254 20 803360/860110E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Hugo De GrooteInternational Centre for Wheat and MaizeImprovement (CIMMYT)P.O. Box 25171, NairobiTel: 254 20 524600/524610Fax: 254 20 524601/524001E-mail: [email protected]

Prof James O. OchandaCoordinator - Biosciences Facility ProjectInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)P.O. Box 30709, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]


Mr John KinuthiaProgrammes CoordinatorConsumer Information Network – Kenya (CIN)P.O. Box 7569-00300, NairobiTel: 254 20 781131Fax: 254 20 781131E-mail: [email protected]

Mr John McDermottDeputy Director GeneralInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)P.O. Box 30709, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Julia Ndungu-SkiltonAssociate Scientist – In situ conservationInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524504Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Kameswara RaoGermplasm Conservation ScientistInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524511Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Kwesi Atta-KrahRegional DirectorInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524507/524524Fax: 254 20 524501/524001E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Laurent NtahugaRegional Technical Co-ordinator for Biodiversityand Species for the Eastern Africa RegionIUCN – The World Conservation Union, EasternAfrica Regional OfficeP.O. Box 68200-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 890605, 254 721 696695Fax: 254 20 890615E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Melchior NahimanaDirector GeneralInstitut de Recherche Agronomique etZootechnique (IRAZ)BP 91, Gitega. BurundiTel: 257 40 3020Fax: 257 40 2364E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

Dr Mikkel GrumScientist – Genetic DiversityInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524505Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Mpoko BokangaExecutive DirectorAfrican Agricultural Technology Foundation-Kenya (AATF) - c/o ILRIP.O. Box 30709-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743 ext. 3739Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]

Nancy MuchiriAfrican Agricultural Technology Foundation-Kenya (AATF) - c/o ILRIP.O. Box 30709-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Nicholas KerandiConsultant/Web DeveloperInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 30677, NairobiTel: 254 20 524500/524509Fax: 254 20 524501E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Noah NsubugaMeeting Master RapporteurInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O.Box 61836-00200Nairobi, KenyaTel: 254-0721-556277E-mail: [email protected]


Dr Olivier HanotteProject Leader – Animal Genetic ResourcesInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)P.O. Box 30709-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743, ext. 4708Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Patrick MaunduInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O.Box 61836-00200Nairobi, KenyaTel: 254 20 524500Fax: 254 20 [email protected]

Mr Peter MunyiInternational Plant Genetic Resources InstituteSub-Saharan Region (IPGRI-SSA)P.O. Box 61836-00200Nairobi, KenyaTel: 254 20 524500/524505Fax: 254 20 524501Email: [email protected]

Dr Remy PasquetInternational Centre of Insect Physiology andEcology (ICIPE)P.O. Box 30772, NairobiTel: 254 20 802501/3/9Fax: 254 20 803360/860110E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Rose NdegwaIntellectual Property OfficerInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)P.O. Box 30709-00100, NairobiTel: 254 20 630743Fax: 254 20 631499E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Sophia HuyerSenior Research AdvisorGender Advisory BoardUnited Nations Commission on Science andTechnology for Development204 Ventress Road, Brighton, Ontario K0K 1H0,CanadaE-mail: [email protected]

Ms Teresa AndersenGE/IPRs Information OfficerThe Gaia Foundationc/o Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup (ITDG) – Eastern AfricaP. O. Box 39493 Nairobi

Tel: 254-20-2713540 Ext. 215Mobile: 254-0720-315079Fax: 254-20-2710083E-mail: [email protected]

INTERGOVERNMENTALORGANIZATIONSMr Charles GbedemahAfrica Regional Coordinator - BiosafetyUnited Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)P.O. Box 47074, Nairobi, KenyaUNEP-GEF OfficeTel: 254 20 624066Fax: 254 20 624041E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Terri RaneySenior Economist and Editor – The State of Foodand AgricultureFood and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO-UN)Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100, Rome, ItalyTel: 39 06 570 52401Fax: 39 06 570 55522E-mail: [email protected]

DONOR ORGANIZATIONSDr Basil JonesSenior Program SpecialistInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Constance J. FreemanRegional DirectorInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Dr François GasengayireSenior Program OfficerInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]


Dr Innocent ButaréSenior Program SpecialistInternational Development Research Centre –West and Central Africa Regional Office (IDRC –WARO)P.O. Box 11007, DakarTel: 221 864 0000, ext. 2074Fax: 221 825 3255E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Luis NavarroSenior Program SpecialistInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Margaret MaleProgramme AdministratorInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Maureen NakirundaResearch OfficerInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Vivianne NgugiOutreach & Communications OfficerInternational Development Research Centre –Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office(IDRC – ESARO)P.O. Box 62084-00200, NairobiTel: 254 20 2713160/1Fax: 254 20 2711063E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Wardie LeppanTeam Leader – Sustainable Use of BiodiversityInternational Development Research Centre(IDRC) – Head OfficeP.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, OntarioTel: 1 613 236 6163Fax: 1 613 238 7230E-mail: [email protected]

THE MEDIAMr Fredrick NzwiliEast Africa CorrespondentEcumenical News International (ENI)P.O. Box 11562-00100Tel: 254 20 722 750163E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Kimani ChegeBiosafety NewsE-mail: [email protected]

Mr Konchora GurachaThe East African StandardTel: 254 20 340080/3222111E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Naftali MungaiNation NewspapersP. O. Box 49010-00100 NairobiTel: 254-20-32088000.


regional consultation on genetic engineering/gmos for ... · synthesis report regional consultation...

Documents