Transcript SUSTRA Workshop on Vested Interests and Political Economy

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
1
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

2
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)
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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 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
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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.
11
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?
12
Critics case
• Uncertainty of the environmental and health risks
(Egypt’s reason for retraction of its support from the EUUS 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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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)
18
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 Agribiotech applications (ISAAA)
– Collaboration with MNCs
– Contribution to R&D
– stakeholders involved in the development of national legislation
19
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
20
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
21
Other Stakeholders
• Individuals with relevant expertise
• Farmers’ groups e.g. Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union
• MNCs
• Media
22
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
23