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

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 Boardestablished, 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 Nigeria’s patent laws to cover the issue of intellectual property rights • Cote d’Ivoire, 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 (Egypt’s 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. Nigeria’s patent laws being amended to incorporate IPR • Capacity building and technical assistance • Investment in R&D • 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) - Germany’s $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 R&D • 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