Biotechnology in Africa Conference Report

By

Report on the Biotechnology in Africa Conference,

26-27 September 2001, Johannesburg

Contents	Page
Title and Contents	1
Partners and Sponsors	2
Background	3
Synopsis of the conference	4
Session Reports:	5
· Biotechnology: Addressing the Needs of Africa	5
· The Power of Information and Public Awareness	6
· Managing Business and Trade Through Good Policy	7
· Mechanisms for R&D, Technology Transfer and Networking	8
· Biodiversity, Biosafety and the Law	8
Workshop for African delegates (28 Sept. 2001)	10
· Feedback from delegates	10
· Working group reports	11
· The way forward	13
Press release	14

Partners

AfricaBio

African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), Kenya

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)

Global Biodiversity Institute (GBDI)

Sponsors

USDA

Pioneer Hi-Bred

Rockefeller Foundation

Enzymes SA / Novozymes

Unilever

Background

The conference was organised to review the impact biotechnology will have on business, development and society in Africa. By attracting a largely African attendance the conference focused on African issues. The sessions were designed to provide a platform for debate in the region, encouraging discussion on the presentations and their relevance to the continent.

The debate highlighted the need for dialogue and raising awareness about biotechnology and biodiversity, especially the role these will play in development. Presentations facilitated information transfer on global issues and engendered discussion on the relevance and impact of globalization to Africa. There was an emphasis on networking between delegates and an overall focus on preparation for the World Summit in September 2002.

To achieve this the conference identified five focus areas:

· Biotechnology: Addressing the needs of Africa

· The power of information and public awareness for understanding biotechnology

· Managing business and trade through good policy

· The mechanisms for R & D, technology transfer and networking

· Biodiversity, biosafety and the law

Local, regional and international speakers addressed these themes. The synopsis of each session was shared in the last plenary session and is provided in this report.

Finally, the conference was followed by a workshop for African delegates to debate and plan the development of an African biotechnology stakeholders’ statement for the World Summit for Sustainable Development. This discussion is summarised in the report.

Synopsis of the Biotechnology in Africa Conference

The following points arose from the Biotechnology in Africa Conference, held in Johannesburg, South Africa. 192 delegates and about 15 media representatives attended the conference. One hundred and seventy one delegates represented 12 African countries.

· African delegates are cautiously optimistic that biotechnology can play a positive role in development on the continent.

· Africa wishes to implement the technology according to their priorities and in a way that will address the needs they identify.

· Safe and responsible implementation requires effective national policy and biosafety frameworks. (Decisions on whether or not to implement the technology will be made at national level.)

· Extensive public awareness is required to address the concerns stakeholders have about the new technology, to highlight biosafety measures and the benefits of biotechnology products.

· Information on biotechnology and biosafety should be clear, accurate, holistic and balanced.

· In addition to building new capacity ways must be sought to make optimal use of existing capacity on the continent.

· Strong African participation is needed from all stakeholders at all international and regional meetings to ensure that the African voice is heard and considered.

· Funding will be needed to implement biotechnology and biosafety and this should include increased financial commitment from African governments.

· Partnerships, collaboration, networking and transparency will maximize the use of resources.

· Harmonization of technical activities and laws will benefit trade on the continent.

The conference was followed by a workshop for African delegates. This provided a platform for discussion and enabled the formulation of an action plan to follow up on ideas generated at the conference. Included in this is an action plan for developing a strong African voice for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in 2002.

Session Reports

1. Biotechnology: Addressing the needs of Africa

· Second generation biotechnology research is going well, although there is some concern that third generation biotechnology (GMOs) is still perceived as high risk. There is a need to proceed with caution, as the infrastructure, facilities, capacities and regulations are not optimal in African countries. Africa will need to address these inadequacies before venturing further.

· The delegates expressed the need to be cautious when tackling issues relating to opposition to the technology. It was therefore recommended that stakeholders should focus on maximizing communication of effective, correct and relevant information, and correction of any misconceptions about the technology.

· It was noted that countries have different needs and priorities. It was therefore suggested that country groupings/regional hubs be established to address local issues. Formation of African partnerships was also recommended. E.g. Kenya and South Africa Sweet potato project.

· Commitment from policy makers

· Broad Stakeholder involvement in all areas focusing on development national institutions, was encouraged.

· Assessment of priorities and needs involving all stakeholders, especially the end users, should be carried out from the beginning of each process to identify the needs and constraints of the user, e.g. farmer and consumer.

Conclusions & The Way Ahead

Raising awareness at all levels (nationally). Among:

· Policy/decision makers and those who influence them

· Scientists in related fields

· General public (through the media) – in an understandable format

· Funding/credit and policy agents

· Nationally - through education and awareness raising of the policy makers and the public..

· Regionally - need to sensitize African discussion groups to start deliberating on biotechnology issues.

· Rationalization, harmonization and coordination of biotechnology initiatives into an Action Plan. The 'debate' on biotechnology issues must be balanced with 'action' underpinned by awareness raising throughout.

Networking was identified as a vital tool for coordinating efforts. The following suggestions were recommended:

· Establishing national focal points

· Establishment of regional hubs

· Pooling of resources - "a common problem, a common solution"

· Overall coordinator or overseer to ensure activities undertaken

· Minimum requirement for each country before undertaking third generation biotechnology, for example include:

· Introduction and implementation of sound GMO policy and regulatory measures

· List of recommended goals in infrastructure etc before going forward with third generation biotechnology

· Communication and information exchange, through workshops, brochures, publications, print and electronic media and press conferences should be used to improve the information network in Africa

· Involvement of ALL African countries and ALL stakeholders.

2. The Power of Information and Public Awareness

Presentations

Cheryl Toner, IFIC:

Many surveys conducted which generally indicate that:

(1) US consumers want to be informed, but not necessarily through labeling.

(2) The term biotechnology is more readily acceptable than GMO.

(3) Consumer activists do not represent the general opinions of consumers.

Klaus Amman, Switzerland:

Prof. Amman gave an overview of a European perspective towards Genetically Modified Foods. He emphasized the need to listen to the consumers and to respect their feelings and prior knowledge. He concluded that European countries are very divided in their acceptance of genetic modification of foods.

Javier Verastegui, CamBio:

Dr. Verastegui discussed the developments in Latin America about public perception.

Bongi Mavuka, African Housewives League:

Mrs. Mavuka discussed the establishment of the African Housewives League in the 60’s its moto “Lift as you rise”, its mission as well as how Biotechnology fits into the A.H.L.’s Mandate. She gave a strong message to Government and Industry to form strong links with consumer organizations and to keep consumers informed.

Muffy Koch, Innovation Biotechnology:

This paper discussed 3 surveys conducted in Africa; one in Tanzania in 1999 which showed the vast majority of the population not having any knowledge on Biotechnology. The second survey conducted by the food industry in Durban showed a similar situation to Tanzania. The third, more recent survey by a student in biotechnology from Pretoria Technikon was undertaken in urban areas of South Africa. This showed a slight increase in those not aware of biotechnology. The challenge is to raise public awareness with balanced information and to ensure that this uninformed group does not fall victim to the mass misinformation that clogs the media.

Wilna Jansen van Rijssen, Dept of Health

This presentation elaborated on Codex Alimentarius labeling principles and followed with a brief outline problems associated with labeling food products containing GM ingredients.

Issues such as pros and cons and difficulties in GM labeling, the use of analytical techniques, traceability were discussed. The presentation finished off with an outline of SA regulations regarding GM labeling.

Discussion

Indigenous tastes: Feeling amongst consumers that GM will destroy indigenous tastes. Panel felt that that is not in danger as to date, no flavour changes have occurred in all released GM crops. In some cases in fact, flavour could be enhanced through GM.

“GM – free” labelling – are we not perpetuating the myths and misinformation.

Feeling of panel = difficult to balance these issues and that other means (not only labelling) must be used to inform consumer.

Monsanto raised need for partnerships between Government organizations, private industry and academia to create public awareness. All agreed this is necessary.

Use of indigenous languages in promoting public understanding of biotechnology? AfricaBio has translated pamphlets into 5 official languages. School curricula: train teachers in English and they take information back to children in schools in own languages.

3.Managing Business and Trade through Good Policy

Common themes addressed by the session included:

· Public acceptance of biotechnology

· EU consumers ‘anti’ because the benefits were not clearly communicated

· Support for biotechnology in the USA is up to 60%

· Need to communicate value of in put traits positively

· In South Africa fear of adverse opinion is hampering venture capital investment.

· Labelling

· Labels have a negative connotation – they are seen as a warning

· Labelling in the EU killed GM products

· No large demand from public for labelling

· Consumers prefer detailed information to be ‘off label’

· Labelling can misinform consumers.

· Testing for the presence of GMOs

· It is better to define thresholds and percentages at the start of the food chain, not downstream

· Cannot ensure ‘GM-free’

· Organic legislation requiring GM-free is unobtainable

· Need to consider levels for adventitious mixing.

· Need for harmonization of gene and seed certification laws

· Need to standardise testing and sampling methods

· Need an agreement on adventitious mixing

· Sub-regional harmonisation needed.

· Trade barriers

· EU market requires GM-free

· EU imports GM soya

· Identity preservation systems add cost to the food.

· Implications of Biosafety Protocol

· Deals with living GMOs, not products derived from GM

· Market threats include time needed for approval; liability and redress, no provision to resolve trade disputes.

· Advanced informed agreement (AIA) needs to be activated

· Special provisions for developing country governments w.r.t. AIA.

· Need for government – industry partnerships

· Risk money can come from industry or government (e.g. Cuba)

· Partnerships needed to address regulatory issues

· Need interdepartmental working groups to implement decision making

· Industry must get involved in discussions to add experience and practicality.

· Availability of venture capital

· Only one venture capital fund in South Africa

· Private sector is risk adverse

· No money invested in SA yet

· Return on investment of 30% is required over 5 to 8 years.

4.Mechanisms for R&D, Technology Transfer and Networking

The presentations highlighted:

· The potential value of biotechnology to orphan crops, food security and biodiversity on the continent

· The role and scope of funding available for the continent

· An encouragement to access funding for local needs and priorities, especially through regional projects with broad benefit to rural communities

· An overview of current efforts to building biosafety and biotechnology capacity in Africa

· The importance of partnerships in prioritizing needs, harmonizing implementation and filling critical gaps

· The role of regional organisations in facilitating the implementation of technology through policy development, awareness building and pooled resources

· A critical look at the function of donor agencies, the need to be our own accountable caretakers of funding and its application, and the importance of coordinating funding from various agencies.

Points addressed in the discussion included:

· Mechanisms are needed to address the brain drain, such as training Africans for Africa and providing incentives to return to the continent.

· Coordination of donor funding is needed to reduce duplication and get better use of resources.

· Africa needs to be its own caretaker in determining priorities and managing funds effectively.

· It is imperative to prioritize needs

· Harmonisation on a regional basis will improve effectiveness and make better use of resources.

5.Biodiversity, Biosafety and the Law

The presentations highlighted:

· Risk assessment can be carried out effectively but its findings are not always black and white – there is no such thing as zero risk.

· Risk assessors build a case for each GMO in each environment.

· Biotechnology has a valuable role to play in managing, conserving and documenting biodiversity.

· Extensive sensitization of decision-makers has occurred on the continent in the last year with regard to biodiversity, biosafety and the law.

· Awareness building is an on going process – it is never completed.

· The UNEP/GEF project will run for three years to assist countries that have signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to implement effective national biosafety frameworks.

· There is little awareness of the role intellectual property rights will play in developing the potential of Africa natural resources.

· Documentation of biodiversity and traditional knowledge is essential to ensure returns should these become commercially viable.

The discussion noted:

· Participation by Africans is needed at all international and regional meetings to ensure a strong African voice.

· It may be necessary to approach UNEP/GEF as a region to enable non-signatories to the Protocol to benefit from the assistance to develop national biosafety frameworks.

· It is possible to grant permission to test and commercialise crops in centres of origin providing enough data is available to assess risks and identify adequate management conditions.

· It is impossible to prevent plant material leaving a country. It is important to make access legal and easy to ensure compliance and development of these resources.

· Laws need to be implemented to be effective. These laws should be flexible to deal with the rapidly evolving technology.

· Africa has a unique opportunity to harmonise its biosafety laws now, but suggest the OAU Model Law is best used as a check list only.

· Negative media reports should be countered with balanced information.

Biotechnology in Africa Workshop, 28 September 2001

1. Delegate feedback after workshop introduction

· The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety has derived from Agenda 21 – we need to optimize how we use this – especially the capacity building option coordinated by UNEP/GEF.

· Review why some countries haven’t signed the CPB and address needs from this base.

· Need to make IPR issues a part of the agenda.

· Need to look at better participation in CODEX.

· Should combine biodiversity and biotechnology to provide a stronger image for the World Summit negotiations.

· Need to recognize our biodiversity status and use our own energies to turn this strength into value for the continent.

· We need a ‘shorter-term’ agenda – the meetings leading up to the World Summit + a pre-Summit Africa meeting.

· Short position papers on the status of biodiversity in the region (check if other organizations have done this).

· Establish an all-Africa website on biotechnology and biodiversity, set up in Africa and run by Africa, with assistance from partners (Bio-scope, Danford, GIC). Identify a site, coordinator and server. (Independence, facilities, shared responsibility.)

· Must build on the culture of communication, which is a part of African tradition.

· May need to look at coordination of all the activities to document collaborations, projects, networks and partnerships.

· Should build on the resolutions of earlier meetings, e.g. BTZ meeting. Need meeting organizers to circulate outcomes of meetings to the region.

· Need to have a strategy to get the appropriate stakeholders to regional meetings.

· AfricaBio asked to circulate their Workshop mailing list that was developed from the participant lists of previous meetings in the region.

· Public awareness needs to include stakeholder participation and building awareness in the US and EU about African biotechnology and biodiversity.

· Would benefit from a summary of relevant documents (Agenda 21, Chapter 16, CPB) for the regional stakeholders to use as a quick reference resource. Include references to access the greater detail.

· Need to include infrastructure development for effective implementation of biotechnology, biodiversity and biosafety (LMOs).

2. Feedback from work groups.

Each working group reviewed the introductory material and added regional projects that were not already listed. The groups identified priorities and then considered short, medium and long-term goals for the region. The groups identified proposals that needed to be developed for the region.

2.1 Trade, policy, and intellectual policy

Proposals to develop…

· Co-ordination of biosafety, IPR issues, indigenous knowledge, access to technology, farmers’ rights

· Create functioning focal points (service units) to facilitate harmonized implementation.

Priorities…

Short to medium term:

· Trade and GMOs – parallel product systems

· Free trade issues

· Documentation of biodiversity in Africa

· Implement biosafety regulations

· Finalise IPR issues.

2.2 Biosafety and biodiversity

Projects needed:

· Harmonization of biosafety implementation within the region

· Develop African case studies on risk assessment of GMOs (these are available)

· Develop and strengthen biosafety in the region

· Build awareness of biosafety<