Biosafety Policies and Food Security Issues in Africa: How Enhancing?

Biosafety Policies and Food Security Issues in Africa: How

Enhancing?

Diran MakindeNEPAD Agency African Biosafety Network of Expertise,

Ouagadougou, Burkina FasoPresentation at the FARA Science Week Side Event on Sustainable

Intensification: A New Paradigm for African AgricultureAccra. Tuesday, 16th July 2:30 – 3:45pm

Issues

• Africa, spends btwn $30 billion to $50 billion/year to import food. (Funds needed for infrastructure, social & economic

amenities) By 2030 could be up to $150 billion!!!• Prior to 2008 financial crisis, Africa grew faster than

most world regions with more than 40 % of its countries with an av annual GDP growth rate of 2.3%-3.8%.

• Agric productn increased to 12.3% of GDP in ’09 (Attributed to farm area expansion)

33

Low soil fertility and poor nutritionLow soil fertility and poor nutrition Poor varietiesPoor varieties Poor crop managementPoor crop management Inappropriate labour saving technologiesInappropriate labour saving technologies Pests, diseases and weedsPests, diseases and weeds Post harvest lossesPost harvest losses Inadequate processing and utilization Inadequate processing and utilization Shortage of seed and other planting materialsShortage of seed and other planting materials

Threats to food security in Threats to food security in AfricaAfrica

And now global warming and climate change…..

Models suggest that climate change are positive or neutral at high latitudes but negative at low latitudes

Increased CO2 (from the current 385 ppm set to rise to 450ppm) raises some yields

H20 limits others

Spectrum of pests and disease change

Carbon dioxide levels over the last 60,000 years

Transforming African Agriculture

• Widespread use of quality farm inputs & technologies– Improved seed - conventional & biotechnology– Fertiliser– Crop protection chemicals– Irrigation– Equipment

• Empowered farmers– Training – gain the knowledge, info & skills– Credit– Basic health, education & nutrition

• Markets that work– Incentive to invest– Infrastructure that enables trade– Information to make good business decisions

• Proactive Policy, Regulatory Reform– Political will and commitment to create and enabling environment

• Laws, investments in infrastructure, R&D, training, input subsidy, environment etc51

GM crops approved in SA (AfricaBio, 2012)

Crops Year first approved

Year first produced

Insect – resistant cotton 1997 1998

Insect – resistant maize 1997 1988/1999

Herbicide – tolerant cotton 2000 2001/2002

Herbicide – tolerant soybean 2001 2001/2002

Herbicide – tolerant maize 2002 2003/2004

Stacked cotton (Bt + HT)-Insect resistance-Herbicide resistance

2005 2005/2006

Stacked maize (Bt + HT)

2007 2007/08

Bollgard II cotton (2 Bt genes)

2010 2010

1st CFT was in 1989 and approved according to SAGENE guidelines

Crops Traits % crops planted in SA in 2011

% crops planted in the US in 2011

% crops planted in SA in 2012

Cotton Insect resistance, Herbicide toleranceStacked traits

100% (1%) 94% 100%

95%

Maize Insect resistance, Herbicide toleranceStacked traits

72% (80%) 88% 86%

Soybean Herbicide tolerance 85% (19%) 93% 90%

7

GMOs planted in South Africa (Source: AfricaBio, 2012)

Total Area : 2,3M Ha in 2011 to 2,9M Ha in 201215 years of growing GM crops and increasing hectaresSouth Africa is the fastest and early adopter of GM technology

Projected Economic Benefit Analyses of GM Technology for West Africa

TYLCV = Tomato yellow leaf curl virus; DBM = Diamondback moth; SFB = Shoot & fruit borer

Country Trait Benefit (US$ Million)

Literature

Mali Bt (IR) Cotton 7 – 67 Cabanillla et al. 2004Burkina Faso Bt Cotton 4 – 41 “Benin Bt Cotton 5 – 52 “Cote d’Ivoire Bt Cotton 4 – 38 “Senegal Bt Cotton 1 – 7 “Benin Bt Cowpea 11 – 50 Gbegbelegbe et al. 2007 Ghana GM Tomato

(TYLCV)US$ 920/ha Horna et al. 2008

GM Cabbage (DBM)

US$ 1542/ha

GM African eggplant (SFB)

US$ 1542/ha “

Economic benefit from Bt cotton- B. Faso

Source: INERA, 2012

YearBt area cultivated (ha)

Income cf conventionnal Bt/ha (US$)

Total income/year(US$ million)

2009 129,000 62.0 7,9982010 256,000 84.0 21,5042011 251,000 95.0 23,845

Regulating Risk Assessment Activities ofGE crops at the international level

-The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocol on Biosafety-WTO Agreement on Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures;- FAO-WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology

-OECD UNEP International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology

NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency

Regulatory systems

• AU model law widely adopted – Inspired by the Convention on Biodiversity– Poor understanding of the rational for certain

provisions– Use as a tool to protect African against

“greediness” of multinationals and western world– Vulnerabilities on LMO-FFPs and derived products

that can impact trade and adoption of cultivation– UNEP-GEF activities endorsed it frequently

Croplife Confidential 11

The Precautionary Principle (PP) in action

• The PP has been distorted by activist The PP has been distorted by activist groups and certain governmentsgroups and certain governments

• The PP is being used to block adoption of The PP is being used to block adoption of GMOs in the EU, and elsewhere, in a manner GMOs in the EU, and elsewhere, in a manner inconsistent with commonly accepted inconsistent with commonly accepted definitions and principles.definitions and principles.

• The PP was never intended to be an excuse The PP was never intended to be an excuse to do nothing or to not adopt a technologyto do nothing or to not adopt a technology


PP in action II

• When applied correctly PP is an imp principle in assessing the risks arising from technology

• Used to identify gaps in knowledge, issues that need further study & the scope for potential harm.

• Application has to be contextualized & based on an analysis of data & evidence available, potential harm if the proposed measure is undertaken


Enabling legislative and regulatory frameworks in 1st six biotech adopter nations in Africa (Okeno et al. New Biotechnol. 30, 2013)

Country Regulatory Framework Biosafety act/bill Biosafety

regulations/guidelinesBiotech policy/strategy

South Africa Biosafety Act No. 2 1997 GMO Regulations 1999

Draft GMO Regulations 2008

National Biotechnology Strategy 2001

Burkina Faso Biosafety Act 2006 GMO Regulations and guidelines 2004

No stand-alone Biotech Policy

Egypt Draft Biosafety Bill 2006 Ministerial Decree No. 136 of 1995

Ministerial Decree No 1648 of 1998

No stand-alone Biotech Policy

Kenya Biosafety Act No. 2 2009 Biosafety Regulations 2011 National Biotechnology Policy 2006

Uganda Draft National Biotechnology Safety Bill 2008

CFT Guidelines 2006 National Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy 2008

Nigeria Biosafety Act 2011 Biosafety Guidelines 2001 National Biosafety Policy 2006

The 4 Biosafety ConstraintsPolicy

• Too focused on risks; not reflect global experience.

• Non-science elements- socio-economic considerations

• Strict liability clauses- disincentive

• RA requirements out of sync with product dev.

• Regulations are typically unaffordable & unenforceable.

• National vs regional conflicts

Capacity• Poor critical mass of experts-

opportunity for loud voices & influencers

• Opposing views of development partners

Process• Inter-ministerial turf-lack of

harmonization.• Limited operational budget• Biosafety law not reconciled

with existing laws

Practice• Expensive infrastructure for CFTsTrade issues• NEPAD Planning and Coordinating

Constraints in developing Regulatory Framework

• Limited institutional capacity- human, financial & institutional

• Lack of domestic regulatory policy for testing, release and commercialisatn.

• The complexity of the decisions required within a specific time-frame

• The problems of public involvement in countries with high levels of illiteracy.

Africa 2012 On-going biotech/GM crops research activities by October 1st 2012

Challenges

• Risk of backsliding• Recent govt. decisions not supportive: labeling

regulations; GM import ban• No coherent position among govt. agencies;

or within key govt. entities such as Public Health;

• Elections: a challenge and an opportunity

Challenges to NEPAD Agency ABNE

• ABNE is milestone-driven but circumstances are sometimes beyond ABNE’s control– Changing political climate– Policies and laws that are not implementable

• Biotechnology is moving forward – demand for regulatory services is outpacing the resources.

Other Challenges

• Training of producers• Technology fee• Seed production• Establishment of refugia zones• Co-existence between GM & non-GM• Building research capacity• New pests


Quo vadis (Where do we go from here?)

• Operational funding by governments for national biosafety functions;

• Donors: funding for regulatory capacity, not just for R&D.

• Strategic, coordinated approach to outreach & communication;

• Reposition the Biosafety Protocol for what it was intended to be- not the “de facto” reg framework it has become.


“Structural” issues• Capacity at all level (infrastructure, technical

staff/ experts / lawyers / regulators / farmers…etc…)

• Regional and global trade (free trade areas, access to food aid)

• Trans-boundary movement (communities # countries)

• Logistic (transportation, audits, monitoring)• Seed laws – certification (poor processes,

exemptions…)

Croplife Confidential 22

Focus on Africa

23

Situational Reports: Zambia and Malawi Policy Scenario

• Zambia implemented 2 very successful input subsidy transfer progr in the 2000s, the Fertilizer Support Progr and the Food Security Pack. Success incurred huge budgetary & admin costs.

• 2005/6 Malawi had a successful “smart” subsidy- cannot be sustained.

Implementation of APPROPRIATE REGULATION is a MUST to spur adoption of biotech crops in AFRICA Source :Compiled by Clive James, 2012

2011 (3 countries)South Africa, Burkina Faso

and Egypt

2015 (up to 10 countries) South Africa, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Mali, Togo, Nigeria,

Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Malawi

EGYPT

BURKINAFASO

SOUTHAFRICA

MALAWIBURKINAFASO

TOGO

UGANDA

SOUTHAFRICA

EGYPT

KENYA

NIGERIA

MALI

KENYA

UGANDA

NIGERIA

Ongoing Biotech Crop Field Testing

GHANA

Conclusion• Effective communication between natural

scientists and social scientists;• Questions on socio-economic relevance in

biotech need to be answered;• Application of PP should meet policy objectives

& help in the understanding of risks, benefits, uncertainties & gaps in knowledge.

The opportunities to learn from experience rather than in theory


Conclusion II

Sustainability of GMOs in Africa will require: -policy direction; -leadership by govt. agencies to maintain & enforce

biosafety compliance; -on-going research by agric. scientists to monitor & assess

GMO performance and insect resistance development;-a strong extension network to deliver training & info to

producers as appropriate;- Unfair trade issues & the European factor settled;- If Bt cotton success is sustained in Burkina it will serve as

a gateway to the future introduction and dev’t of other biotech crops in Africa; having demonstrated the scientific, legal & business infrastructures for GMOs in Africa

Conclusion III• With proper planning African countries can

adopt GM crops but not entirely on their own• Strategies for transforming African agric. are

on going to address issues of low agric. (R&D) investment & productivity, poor infrastr., application of yield-enhancing technologies, unfavorable policy & regulatory environments & climate change.

• When food security increased, nutrition & health improve to promote productivity

AD Planning and Coordinating Agency