R&D and the prospect of widespread commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) crops, and trade and food aid in GM products have brought the genetically modified organisms debate into the public domain in Africa. And for many across the continent there is now a perceived need to harmonise biosafety systems. Countries who are signatories to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are currently engaged in the implementation of the Protocol’s biosafety framework. Each of these factors has been driving biosafety system development in Africa, and this study examined the emerging regulatory systems.
The present study originated in 2004 from our successfully completed ESRC Science in Society project, Institutional Impacts of North-South Partnerships in Agricultural Biotechnology. Two of the three cases we investigated were on GM food crops, and faced legal and bureaucratic constraints. We did not know, however, whether regulatory problems were temporary in nature and limited to the projects investigated - or intrinsic to the emerging regulatory routines and practices.
This study therefore aimed to examine the regulatory systems of crop biotechnology in three African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. We wanted to identify and assess the nature, and causes of regulatory progress and problems, in particular whether countries had sufficient capabilities and capacities to construct governance national and regional systems. We expected the analysis to contribute to the theory on GM technology assessment and management in developing countries.
Our core methodology (and primary source of data) was an in-depth investigation of three national biosafety systems.
Below we highlight some of our key findings and conclusions.
(i) there is evidence of significant innovation in regulatory practices and routines, achieved through the concerted efforts of internal learning and a series of capacity-building initiatives. Although African countries experience extreme scientific and technical resource constraints, achievements in implementing regulatory systems have been made.
(ii) institutionalising the structures and rules of GMO governance is contested. In each of the counties studied, a dominant protagonist has emerged but there is sufficient ground for decisions on GMO activities to be disputed. It is clear that different stakeholders perceive risk regulation from quite radically different perspectives and the notion of risk is related to different factors, for example, loss of biodiversity, control of national natural resources, threat to trade relations and investment in science and technology infrastructure.
(iii) facilitating intra-African trade in GM products is a key challenge. Many African countries are resource-constrained, and hence in response to such limitations, agencies like the New Partnership for Africa’s Development are pursuing a regional centre of excellence-based approach to the development and exploitation of biotechnology. However, some countries are putting in place complex and nationally based biosafety systems. National differences over the scope of regulation and criteria for decision-making over GMOs, the lack of a single model for biosafety systems to converge, and disparities in African economies are making the harmonisation process at Africa level more difficult.
These findings have important implications for broader frameworks of risk regulation. They echo the difficulties experienced in Europe and other parts of the world of constructing regionally harmonised biosafety regulatory systems. Yet, there are a set of factors which are distinctive in Africa. For example, pressures to overcome trade constraints place many countries in a very difficult position as they are squeezed between contradictory messages from the US (broadly thought of as pro-GM) and Europe (where much policy and consumer preference remains anti-GM). African countries also face extreme constraints in scientific and technical resource. Thus, whilst there clearly are problems in implementing regional systems, there are also more pressures to succeed in this endeavour.
In our proposal we promised to deliver two articles in peer-reviewed international journals and a short article in SciDev.Net; develop a new project; generate new data; and maintain and expand our networks with key actors in the field of biotechnology. We also planned to co-organise two workshops. We are set to exceed these targets as summarised below:
(i) conference papers delivered:
Two conference papers have been delivered by Seife Ayele at international conferences: Innovation in GM crop regulation in Africa and The Legitimation of GMO Governance in Africa.
(ii) planned presentations at conferences and workshops:
Two more conference papers have been accepted for presentation at high profile international meetings.
(iii) workshops co-organised:
With colleagues at Open University, we organised an international workshop earlier this year. We are also organising a session at the ESRC Innogen Centre Annual Conference 2006 in September.
(iv) publication
Owing to the short duration of the project (one year) journal articles are not yet in print, but work in progress includes:
1 The Legitimation of GMO Governance in Africa, submitted to Science and Public Policy journal.
Two articles are in preparation under the following provisional titles:
2 Biodiversity and Biosafety Systems Building in Africa.
3 GMO Regulatory Practices: Experiences from Kenya and South Africa
4 An article highlighting the lessons learnt from the study has been agreed and will shortly be submitted to SciDev.Net (http://www.scidev.net/).
(v) new data
The extensive qualitative data collected will be offered to the ESRC data archive as rules require.
(vi) maintaining and expanding our networking
A very positive outcome of this research is that it has contributed to networking and collaboration with key players in the African biotechnology sector. For example we have recently submitted a bid with the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) in Kenya to jointly host seminars and workshops on science and innovation policy in Africa.
(vii) further research agenda
We developed a project proposal that builds on research undertaken with this grant and submitted to the ESRC on ‘Innovation in pan-African agricultural technologies: an examination of a global approach to reduce hunger in Africa’.
Joanna Chataway is currently supervising a PhD student whose work draws on analysis developed in this project and compares three different attempts to construct policy convergence in Africa. From October 2006, Joanna Chataway and Seife Ayele will supervise another PhD student looking at Kenyan biotechnology regulations.