program for biosafety systems – contrasting investments in agricultural biotechnology in africa...
TRANSCRIPT
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Contrasting Investments in Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa and Latin America: Technological Triumphs with Institutional
Challenges
Jose Falck-Zepeda, Patricia Zambrano, Geoffrey Arinaitwe, Cesar Falconi, Virginia Kimani, Muffy Kock, Eduardo Trigo Sylvia
Uzochukwu
Paper presented at the ICABR conference, Ravello, Italy June 2015.This presentation has not been formally peer-reviewed by IFPRI or elsewhere. Opinions in this presentation and paper are solely those of the authors and not of IFPRI and its donors.
Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Portfolio of research project
Project Donor Years Active
Capacidad Biotecnologica en America Latina y el Caribe
IADB 2007-2009
Next Harvest I ISNAR/IFPRI 2001-2003GM crops in Africa AfDB 2010-2012Next Harvest II Templeton
Foundation2012-2013
Evolution of Policy QuestionsNext Harvest, 2004 IFPRI-AfDB
report, 2014
• Technologies• Constraints• Cost of compliance
• If Africa wants to invest in biotechnology, what does it need to know?
Research Scope• Technologies: Agricultural R&D
biotechnology– Number of public and private
institutions– Focus of agbiotech R&D project– Human and financial resources– Techniques and methods– Focus of established
collaborations – State of current policy and
regulations– Constraints and opportunities
Scope: Institutions working on agbiotech
• Government research • Academic• Private companies• Associations• International,
Continental and other organizations
• Regulatory
Instruments developed and implemented
• Institute/group questionnaire
• Project questionnaire
• Semi-structured interviews
Total investments in agricultural biotechnology in Latin America by region and/or country (2008, 1,000 US$)
Region/ Country Private Public TotalMexico - 24,775 24,775 Central America and Dominican Republic
- 6,309 6,309
Southern Cone 4,500 8,322 12,822 Brazil 13,761 55,046 68,807 Andean Region 5,716 14,545 20,261 Total 23,978 108,996 132,974
Human resources Latin America 2008
B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D. Sum ResearchCountry Private Public Total Private Public Total Private Public Total Private Public Total
Argentina 6 13 19 2 19 21 3 16 19 11 47 58
Brasil 24 24 53 53 0 282 282 0 358 358
Colombia 86 53 139 22 27 49 30 16 46 138 96 234
Costa Rica 24 34 38 38 33 33 0 97 97
Honduras 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2
Perú 5 89 94 2 52 54 1 32 33 7 172 179
Uruguay 16 33 49 9 30 39 2 22 24 27 85 112
Resto LAC39 262 291 31 446 477 44 474 518 115 1183 1299
Total 152 498 650 66 666 732 80 876 956 298 2040 2339
Ongoing agbiotech projects selected African countries(2012)
Microbes
Forestry and ornamentals
Livestock and fisheries
Crops
2
10
10
30
3
5
10
45
2
28
Nigeria Kenya Uganda
South Africa: number of groups implementing Agbiotech R&D, 2012
Sector Type R&D groups
#
R&D projects
Estimated #Public Public research 19 715 Academic 16 215 Government 1 10Private NGO 1 1 Private 15 25All 52 966
Number of researchers implementing agbiotech projects, 2012
Ph. D.
M.Sc B.Sc
.
Cert.Dip...
Other s
u...
59.884.2
109.0 102.4 99.023.1
38.8
68.0 59.0 70.0
Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support
45.0 33.0 43.0 24.050.0
9.0 22.032.0
24.0
50.0
Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support
16.4 12.8 15.7 20.034.05.0 11.8 12.0 14.0
19.0
Male Female
Kenya, 160.7 FTE
Nigeria, 382.8 FTE
Uganda, 279 FTE
Estimated number of researchers and support implementing agbiotech projects
South Africa, 2012 Degree ARC
All
others
Total
Ph. D. 105 34 139
M.Sc. 213 70 283
B. Sc. 678 222 899
Other Research 13 4 17
Support 825 231 1,055
All 1,833 561 2,394
Estimated Agbiotech R&D spending, 2012Institutes (number)
Local Currency Unit(millions)
2012 US$ (millions)
As % of AgGDP
Kenya 22 421.9 KY Shillings 4.99 0.041
Nigeria 20 870.6 Naira 5.55 0.005
South Africa 1 730.8 Rand 89.12 0.904
Uganda 15 ---- Ug Shillings 5.5 0.098
National innovation and GM biotechnology capacity in Africa
Common innovationinfrastructure
Links, networks and technology transfer
capacity Cluster specific environment
Countries
Overall innovative capacity
Intellectual Property situation
Economy wide status Market size
Strength of the private sector
Biotechnology technical capacity
Biosafety regulatory capacity
Summary biotech capacity
Algeria +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ + +++Burkina ++ + ++ +++ ++ + ++ +Egypt +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +++Kenya +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++Nigeria +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++South Africa +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ +++Tanzania +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + ++Uganda +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++Zambia ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta, Debdatta; Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC: African Development Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute. Partially based on model by Furman, Porter and Stern (2002).
Partial list of innovative capacity categories’ description
Category DescriptionNon-selective biotechnology importers
i. Countries without any accumulated institutional capacity
ii. Diffusion of new technologies (conventional or biotech) occurs spontaneously or through individual initiatives, without any supporting institutional framework
Biotechnology
innovators
i. Have R&D systems having a broad coverage from basic research (development of new techniques) to the development of specific products for a broad set of crops and species
ii. Science and technology systems can develop frontier science and have well defined interaction channels with the productive sectors of the economy in order to maintain a continuous link with the input and output markets.
iii. Generally, these systems also show established links with Centers of Excellence and Advanced research centers in developed countries, which frequently materialize through joint research projects.
Effective agbiotech capacity: Mapping countries to policy situations, Africa
Policy situation Small market Medium markets Large markets
Nonselective biotechnology importers
Seychelles, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cape Verde, Comoros, Mauritius, Equatorial Guinea, Swaziland, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, Lesotho, Botswana, Liberia
Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Rep., Congo Rep., Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea Libya, Mozambique, Mali, Rwanda, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo, Zimbabwe
Cameroon, Congo, Dem. Rep. Sudan, Niger
Selective biotechnology importers
Namibia, Ghana, Tunisia
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Algeria, Morocco, Zambia, Uganda, Kenya
Biotechnology tools users
NigeriaEgypt
BiotechnologyInnovators
South Africa
Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta, Debdatta; Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC: African Development Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Where technical capacities meet the political and institutional realities: Africa
Country Ban or Moratorium Limits on use Year introduced or
reportedAlgeria Yes - 2000Angola Yes No GM imports (maize) 2004Benin Yes Two five year moratoria- in place until 2013. 2002
Botswana Maize No GM imports, milled GM food aid ?
Lesotho ? Government advisory that grains to be used only for food not cultivation
?
Malawi Yes Un-milled products food aid; No GM imports 2002Mozambique Yes Un-milled products food aid ?Namibia Yes Received wheat instead of maize for food; No GM imports 2002Nigeria Yes Un-milled products food aid ?Sudan Yes Allowed import of GM food aid through temporary
waivers2003
Swaziland Government advisory that grains to be used only for food not cultivation; Changing GM acceptance/rejection for food aid
?
Zambia Yes No GM imports, no GM food aid in 2002, milled GM food aid in emergency after
2002
Zimbabwe Yes No GM imports (1% tolerance for maize and soybeans), identity preserved requirements for non-GM, milled GM food aid in 2002, no GM food aid after
2002
Source: based on Falck-Zepeda (2006); Gruere and Sengupta (2010).Notes: Algeria has also a ban on distribution and commercialization of GM products. Sudan started cultivating commercially Bt cotton. Kenya put a moratorium in place.
Effective agbiotech capacity: Mapping countries to policy situations: Latin America
Category Small markets Medium markets Large markets
Non-selective technology importers
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras*, Nicaragua, Panamá
Bolivia* .** Ecuador**
Selective technology importers
Costa Rica*, Uruguay
Paraguay*, Peru** Venezuela**
Tool users Colombia*, Chile* Argentina*, Mexico*
Innovators Brazil*
*=Adopters, ** = Moratorium, restrictions in place
Policy and politics…and the political/institutional economies of ag biotechnology
• Science based biosafety systems are generally preferred – evidence has a role in this approach
• BUT, this is not about the science and evidence anymore• Actors’ positive and negative roles and impacts
– Political will– NGOs, civil society and pressure groups– International regulatory regimes (Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety, WTO, ITPGRFA,…)– Public and private sector organizations, universities and scientists– Media– International organizations and donor/investor community
Summary conclusions from Africa and Latin America capacity studies
• Only handful of countries have a critical mass to develop effectively biotechnology innovations (plant breeding)
• Continued erosion of agriculture spending levels – few exceptions
• Lacking financial support for an agricultural biotechnology foundation
Major limitations in Africa and Latin America
– Many policies (IPR, trade and market, regulatory) are not conducive to investment and innovation as they are focused on risk and negative impacts
– Biosafety regulatory policies are a major detrimental constraint
• Confusion – inconsistent with accepted practice • Focused on risk and the precautionary principle• In many cases, biosafety systems inefficient, costly,
lack transparency
– Involvement of the local private sector, especially in the seed industry, in some countries, is minimal
Concluding remarks • Significant agbiotech R&D progress In both Latin
America and Africa• Still insufficient funding if countries do want to
develop ag biotechnology…few exception • If a country desires to develop agbiotech capacity,
it needs to further advance the enabling environment to facilitate research, development and transfer of agbiotech products to farmers
• Critical to devise innovation pathway and how to promote linkages, common innovation infrastructure, and the innovation clusters
• Current “state of affairs” is not an option