Yvonne Apea

1
Trade in GMOs and influence of interest groups in
developing countries focus on Africa

• Yvonne Apea
• ICTSD
• SUSTRA Workshop on Vested Interests and Political
  Economy of Trade Reforms
• 22 23 January 2004

2
Table of Contents

• Background
• Global distribution of GMOs
• Participation of Developing countries in
  biosafety negotiations
• Regulatory developments
• Developing Country Issues
• Proponents case
• Critics case
• Key players and an assessment of their impact
• Concluding remarks

3
Background

• 1971 - First GMOs developed
• Early 1990s -China first country to commercialise
  GMOs
• Global distribution of key developments (ISAAA)
• Field Trials 1986 to 1995
• 91 of field trials conducted in industrialized
  countries
• 1 Eastern Europe and Russia
• 8 developing countries Mostly Latin America,
  Caribbean, Asia. (Very few in Africa, with almost
  all in South Africa)

4
Global distribution of key developments

• Growth of Transgenic Crops in 1998
• Transgenic crops grown by industrialized
  countries - 84 of the global total
• Transgenic crops grown by developing countries
  16 (mostly in Argentina, Mexico, China and South
  Africa)
• Growth of Transgenic Crops 2000 - 2001
• Transgenic crops grown by industrialized
  countries 76
• Transgenic crops grown by developing countries
  24
• Consistent with pattern since 1996, 99 of the
  global transgenic crop area was grown by USA,
  Canada and two developing countries Argentina
  and China

5
Participation of developing countries in
biosafety negotiations

• Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and negotiations on the
  Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• - Developing countries expressed concern about
  biotechnology
• Led to mandate in Agenda 21 and the CBD to
  consider need for separate international
  biosafety treaty (CPB)
• Role of G77 during CPB negotiations

6
Regulatory developments

• Countries relatively more advanced in the use of
  genetic engineering e.g Argentina, China and
  South Africa are at the forefront in developing
  regulatory systems that cover a wider ambit of
  genetic engineering activity.
• Countries where the technology is novel -
  priority has been to formulate biosafety
  regulations
• Many in process of implementing Cartegena
  Protocol on Biosafety
• - Assistance from the UNEP-GEF biosafety
  project on the
• development of national biosafety
  frameworks

7
Africa

• Kenya - Adopted Regulations and Guidelines for
  Biosafety in Biotechnology for Kenya in 1998.
  Currently developing biosafety bill
• Zimbabwe In 1998, Biosafety Board established,
  Research (Biosafety) Regulations passed and
  biosafety procedures and guidelines issued
• South Africa - Genetically Modified Organisms Act
  of 1997 Criticised for lack of transparency and
  public participation, is currently being updated.
  Developing regulations to govern the labelling of
  GM foods
• Nigeria - Began developing its biosafety
  regulations in early 2002, amendments currently
  been made to Nigerias patent laws to cover the
  issue of intellectual property rights
• Cote dIvoire, Ghana, Botswana, Malawi,
  Mauritius, Cameroon, Uganda and Zambia are all in
  the process of developing biosafety laws

8
Harmonization of laws at the country, regional,
sub regional and international levels

• SADC, COMESA, NEPAD All developing regional
  guidelines which incorporate standards of
  biosafety protocol
• The African Union, in collaboration with the
  Ethiopian Environmental Protection Agency, has
  developed a Draft African Model Law on Safety in
  Biotechnology

9
Challenges presented by maze of biosafety
guidelines

• Ensuring conformity with national GM policies and
  priorities
• Ensuring compatibility with multilateral
  agreements such as the Cartegena Protocol and the
  WTO agreements i.e. TBT, SPS core GATT principles

10
Other key considerations for African policy
makers in GMO policy formulation

• Transparency and public participation in decision
  making process
• Striking balance between risk minimisation and
  need to promote investment in technical
  development
• Cost of implementing biosafety and other GMO
  related laws and regulations
• Sequencing developments in GM tech should not
  overtake implementation of biosafety regulations
  to avoid compromises

11
The GMO debate in the African context

• The Proponents Case
• Increased crop yield
• Reduced use of herbicides and insecticides
• Nutrient-enhanced crops
• Crops that can withstand harsh environmental
  stresses drought, salinity
• Larger area of principal crops being enhanced by
  GM techniques is in developing countries.

12
Challenges to proponents case

• Inequitable global food distribution
• disparities in income
• lack of infrastructure like roads to get products
  to market
• armed conflicts
• Subsidies maintained by developed countries
• e.g. BT cotton in Burkina Faso, an end to
  cotton trade row?

13
Critics case

• Uncertainty of the environmental and health risks
  (Egypts reason for retraction of its support
  from the EU-US WTO challenge)
• Denial of access to European country markets due
  to crop contamination ( one reason given by
  southern African countries that refused GM food
  aid )
• Threat of monoculture

14
Critics case contd

• Mistrust of motives of foreign corporations
• Loss of food sovereignty
• Intellectual property rights and biopiracy
  issues
• - Biopiracy by developed countries
• - Biopiracy among developing countries e.g.
  India
• - Distortion of developing country exports

15
How can these concerns be addressed?

• Appropriate laws and policies e.g. Nigerias
  patent laws being amended to incorporate IPR
• Capacity building and technical assistance
• Investment in RD
• Dialogue must move away from hype and
  emotionalism
• Dialogue must explore if and how genetic
  engineering can contribute to sustainable poverty
  alleviation and food security in Africa
• Role for key players

16
Key Players influencing law and Policy

• Policy Makers
• Public Sector and Governmental institutions
• Ministries of agriculture, trade,
  environment, health and safety, in collaboration
  with a range of stakeholders, including public
  and private biotechnology research institutions

17
Policy makers, e.g.

• Nigeria - Federal Ministry of Agriculture in
  conjunction with IITA and the National Research
  Institute
• The role of Research Council of Zimbabwe in
  formulating biosafety policy
• The Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture
  Research Institute of the Ghana Atomic Energy
  Commission - executing UNEP-GEF project on
  behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Science

18
Stakeholders

• International organisations
• - World Bank contributes to the process of
  policy making in agricultural biotechnology e.g.
  through workshops
• - UNEP GEF biosafety project on the
  development of national biosafety frameworks
• Foreign governmental organisations
• - USAID supporting biotechnology in
  developing countries through its Collaborative
  Agricultural Biotechnology Initiative (CABIO)
• - Germanys 2 million fund to assist
  African countries in the development of biosafety
  legislation (Gaia foundation briefing 08/19/03)

19
International biotechnology research
organisations and institutions

• International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
  (IITA), supported by the Consultative Group on
  International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
• International Service for the Acquisition of
  Agri-biotech applications (ISAAA)
• Collaboration with MNCs
• Contribution to RD
• stakeholders involved in the development of
  national legislation

20
Local and international NGOs

• International NGOs
• NGOs operating locally
• Ghana
• - Third World Network (TWN) secretariat in
  Accra, Ghana
• - Agricultural Reform Movement, Ghana
• Kenya
• - African Biotech Stakeholder Forum (ABF)
• - Established by GM proponents
• - lobbying of legislation active
  implementation of the
• biosafety system in Kenya

21
South Africa

• Biowatch South Africa
• South African Freeze Alliance (SAFeAGE)
• The South African experience
• Pressure from NGOs and the South African
  public led to the ff
• - Parliamentary review of genetic engineering
  legislation in April
• 2003
• - Public meeting for civil society to engage
  with government
• - GMO conference on the 15th and 16th of
  April 2003
• key issues
• - ratification of the CPB
• -transparency and public participation in
  the formulation of GMO policy

22
Other Stakeholders

• Individuals with relevant expertise
• Farmers groups e.g. Zimbabwe Farmers Union
• MNCs
• Media

23
Conclusion

• The impact of these players
• Transparency in GMO decision making the SA
  experience
• Public participation and monitoring
• Awareness creation of both the pros and cons of
  GMOs - NGOs and Media
• Consumer empowerment
• Encouraging a cautious approach towards GMOs
• Drawing much needed technical assistance to
  developing countries
• Policy makers are better informed