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.
22
Embed
Program for Biosafety Systems – Contrasting Investments in Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa and Latin America: Technological.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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
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
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