The Determinants of National GM Biotechnology
Innovative Capacity and the Policy and Political
Reality in Africa: A “State of Affairs”
José Falck Zepeda, Judith A. Chambers, Guillaume Gruere,
Patricia Zambrano, Debdatta Sengupta and Karen Hokason
Presentation made at ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy, June 24-27 2012. This presentation and paper
have 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.
Background
 Study commissioned by the African Development Bank to
IFPRI to help define its agricultural biotechnology policy
 Desktop study using the best available secondary
information and the IFPRI/PBS network of partners
 Very limited time frame and few resources
 Focus of the analysis is on genetic modification (GM)
technologies in particular and its agricultural context
 GM technologies are at the center of the controversy
about biotechnology’s role in Africa
 Recognize biotechnology is broad collection of
techniques/methods
Key issues examined in the AfDB
commissioned report
 Capacity
 Regulatory Policy
 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
 Trade and Markets
 Natural Resources Management (NRM) and Biodiversity
 Policy, Politics and Outreach
Conclusions from IFPRI’s Report to the
African Development Bank
 Africa’s capacity to innovate, create, adapt, apply, and
transform its agriculture sector using the new tools of
biotechnology is, at this time, seriously deficient
 In the face of current trends, with a few exceptions, most
countries will depend on the involvement of specific private sector
interests or some combination of willing public sector and
international donors to actually develop products and applications
for use by African farmers and consumers.
Some supporting statements…
 Only handful of countries have a critical mass to begin
using effectively biotechnology innovations
 Alarming declines in the numbers of plant breeders (a
necessary skill set to capitalize on biotech innovations) and
biotechnologists
 Continued erosion of agriculture spending levels – few
exceptions
 Lacking financial support for an agricultural biotechnology
foundation
 Many policies (IPR, trade and market, regulatory) are not
conducive to investment and innovation as they are focused
on risk and negative impacts
Some supporting statements (2)…
 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
 Trade issues need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis
 Export risks, Low level presence(LLP), Labeling,
Documentation requirements
 Involvement of the local private sector, especially in the
seed industry, is minimal
Biotechnology tools used in Africa (percent
use of all institutions surveyed
Source: FAO’s GIPB plant breeding and biotechnology database (http://gipb.fao.org/Web-FAO-PBBC/) using FAO classification of
countries.
Note: AfDB classification considers 1) Eastern Africa contains data from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique,
Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe; (2) Middle Africa contains data from Angola, Cameroon, and Gabon; (3) Southern Africa
contains data from Namibia only; (4) Western Africa includes data from Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo; and 5) Northern Africa includes data from Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia.
Africa’s GM research and commercial projects 2003-2010
Crop
Banana
Cassava
Cocoa
Cotton
Cowpea
Technology
type
PQ
FR
IR
IR
BR
NE
PQ
PQ
VR
NE
FR
AP
HT
IR
IR/HT
AP
AP
IR
Research projects and areas of interest
Africa wide
2003 –2005
Extended shelf life
Fungal resistance to Sigatoka
Nematode resistance
Weevil resistance
Bacterial resistance
Decrease post-harvest deterioration
novel starches
Virus resistance mosaic virus
Ongoing research projects
Commercial release
2010
2010
Uganda
Uganda
South Africa
Egypt, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda
fungus resistant-witches broom and frosty pod
rot
Drought tolerance
Insect resistance - Bollworm
Drought tolerance
productivity enhancement
Resistance to cowpea aphid- borne
mosaic
Egypt
South Africa
South Africa
Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe Burkina Faso South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
Ghana
Cucumber, Melon, VR
Egypt
Squash
Groundnuts
AP
Drought tolerance, Aflatoxin control
Resistance to rosette and clump viruses
VR
IR
Control of storage insects (weevils)
tobacco streak virus
VR
HT
Herbicide resistance used to manage
Source: Atanassov et al. (2004); IFPRI Rapid Assessment Report (2006); Karembu (2009); personal communication.
Note: AP: agronomic property; IR: insect resistant; VR: viral resistant; FR: Fungal resistant; PQ: Product quality; HT: herbicide tolerant.
Crop
Maize
Technology
type
Research projects and areas of
interest Africa wide
Ongoing research projects
Commercial release
2010
2010
HT
2003 –2005
Herbicide resistance
South Africa
IR
Insect resistance - Stem borer
South Africa, Zimbabwe
VR
Resistance Maize Streak Virus
Drought tolerance
AP
FR
Fungal resistance to Fusarium and
Stenocarpella
HT
Glyphosate resistance
PQ
Vitamin enhanced
IR/DT
Kenya, Mozambique,
Tanzania,
South Africa, Uganda
South Africa
South Africa
HT/Bt
South Africa
Potato
IR
Rice
IR
Insect resistance
PQ
Nerica
VR
RYMV resistance
FR
Pyriculariose resistance (fungus)
Egypt, South Africa
Sugarcane
AP
Sweet potato
VR
Featherly mottle virus
Kenya, Zimbabwe
Sorghum
PQ
Nutrition enhancement
Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa
IR
Striga resistant
South Africa
Soybeans
Tomato
Egypt, South Africa
South Africa
VR
Resistance to TYLCV
PQ
Delayed Ripening
Egypt
NEPADs OST centers of excellence in
biosciences
Networks
NABNet (Northern African
Biosciences Network
Nodal
Point
Egypt
Hub National
Center Focus
Area of Work
Research Center
(NRC)
Biopharmaceuticals
North Africa: to lead the continent in research into
bio-pharmaceuticals, drug manufacturing and test kits
WABNet
(West African Biosciences
Network)
Senegal
Senegalese Institute
of Agricultural
Research (ISRA)
Crop Biotech
West Africa: to carry out research using
biotechnology tools to develop cash crops, cereals,
grain, legumes, fruits & vegetables and root/tuber
crops
SANBio (Southern African
Network for Biosciences)
South Africa
CSIR, Bioscience
Unit
Health Biotech
Southern Africa: to deliver health biotechnology by
researching into the causes and prevention methods
of a range of diseases, in particular, TB, malaria and
HIV/AIDS
BecANet (Biosciences East
and Central Africa
Kenya
International
Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI)
Animal Biotech
East Africa: to focus on research into livestock pests
and diseases in order to improve animal health and
husbandry.
Central Africa: to build and strengthen indigenous
capacity by identifying, conserving and sustainably
using natural resources and also researching into the
impact on biodiversity of events such as climate
change and natural disasters
The CGIAR’s biotech research
Center
Bioversity
Center
HQ
Italy
ClAT
Crop
Musa
Pests (weevils,
nematodes), disease
Beans
Agronomic
Cassava
Insect
Modified starch, early
flowering and beta carotene
Virus, disease
Rice
CIMMYT
CIP
Mexico
Peru
Trait (resistance)
Maize
Abiotic stress (flood, acid
soils, high elevation)
Drought
Insect (Bt)
Wheat
Drought
Potato
Sweet
potato
Agronomic
Insect (Bt, )
Disease (late blight)
Virus
Insect,weevils
Modified starch
Research
Gene discovery & characterization
Transformation (particle bombardment &
Agrobacterium):
Backcrossing on wild species:
Transformation (Agrobacterium) of clones used by
small farmers
Regulatory Status
Lab
Greenhouse
Field Trials
Field Trials
Transformation (Agrobacterium) of recalcitrant
cultivar
into local cultivars with target trait
Gene discovery (with CIMMYT, IRRI)
Gene characterization (target insect compatibility)
Transformation and conventional backcrossing
Transcription factor/promoter characterization
Genetic/molecular analysis for transmission &
expression
Transformation system development
(Agrobacterium)
Cultivar development
Cultivar development
Cultivar development
Gene discovery & characterization
Cultivar development
Lab
Lab
Greenhouse
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field Trials
Field trials
The CGIAR’s biotech research (2)
Center
ICARDA
Center
HQ
Syria
Crop
Chickpea
Lentil
Trait (resistance)
Disease, abiotic stress
Disease, abiotic stress
Barley
Wheat
ICRISAT
India
Disease, abiotic stress
Abiotic stress (salt
drought)
Groundnut Disease, virus
Pigeonpea Insect (Bt)
Sorghum
Insect (Bt)
Chickpea
Insect (Bt)
(non-crop
specific)
Musa
Cassava
Cowpea
NA
NA
IITA
Nigeria
ILRI
Kenya
IRRI
Philippines Rice
Virus, insect, fungus,
drought, nutrition
Virus, bacteria, fungus
Virus
Insect (Bt)
Blight, insect (Bt)
Beta-carotene
Research
Regulatory Status
Transformation (Agrobacterium)
Transformation (Agrobacterium)
Transformation (Agrobacterium): Variety
development
Gene discovery & characterization:
Transformation (Agrobacterium)
Tissue culture protocol
Tissue culture protocol
Tissue culture protocol
Tissue culture protocol
Searching genes for further use in cultivar
development
Lab
Lab
Transformation (Agrobacterium)
Transformation
Transformation
Molecular Diagnostics for disease detection
Transformation of bacteria and virus to develop
livestock vaccine against East Coast Fever
Transformation
Cultivar development
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field trials
Field trials
Field trials
Field trials
Lab
CFT
Interesting PPPs in Africa













Fast-growing, disease-resistant eucalyptus trees (tissue culture): a partnership between Africa Harvest, Monti (South
African company), Gatsby Trust. Technology donation by Monti. Gatsby funded startup costs.
Tissue culture bananas: Africa Harvest, KARI, Du Roi (South African company) in partnership with Genetic Technologies
Limited, Nairobi (Suresh Patel) , ISAAA, ABSF (for public perception), Technoserve (US NGO, marketing), DuPont
(funding).
Striga free maize: Partnership between AATF, CIMMYT, KARI, BASF.
IRMA—insect resistant maize for Africa. Partners AATF, KARI, CIMMYT, Syngenta Foundation.
Vitamin A enhancement in Maize: Harvest Plus consortium – CIMMYT, IFPRI, IITA, University of Illinois, Iowa State
University, Wageningen University, and Monsanto.
Network for Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa: Partners include Purdue, University of Zimbabwe, IITA,
University of California, Riverside, Michigan State, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, KirkhouseTrust, and Monsanto.
Virus-resistant sweet potato: Partnership with Africa Harvest, Monsanto, KARI, KEPHIS, William Moar, University of
Alabama, Auburn—working on adapting Bt for sweet potato in Uganda.
Drought-tolerant crops: Initial international partners USAID, Rockefeller, Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa, CGIAR,
Winrock. International.
Cassava engineered for Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) resistance: KARI, Danforth Plant Science Center-USA, USAID,
Cornell University-USA, ISAAA, Kenyan universities.
Bio-sorghum project: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pioneer Hi-bred, national and international research institutes
including KARI, ARC, INERA, CSIR, ICRISAT and AATF., universities: University of Pretoria and University of
California, Berkley, and other groups of organizations, AATF, CORAF and Africa Harvest.
WEMA (Water Efficient Maize): partner institutions include AATF, KARI (Kenya), IIAM (Mozambique), ARC (South
Africa), COSTECH (Tanzania), NARO (Uganda), CIMMYT and Monsanto.
IMAS (Improved Maize for African Soils): Led by CIMMYT. Funding partner, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Other
partner institutions are DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), South African
Agricultural Research Council (ARC).
NUE Rice for East and West Africa: Biotechnology trait for nitrogen use efficiency and salt tolerance; partners are AATF,
IITA, Arcadia Biosciences, USAID, national partners (NARS) in Ghana, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Nigeria.
This paper focuses on the determinants of
biotech innovation...
 We assessed different aspects of 56 countries in Africa
 Used secondary data collected
 Many potential indicators of innovative capacity that may be
used - too many gaps
 Need exists to conduct more in-depth in-country studies
 Conceptually based innovation model but used simplified
approach as in Fuglie and Pray (2000) and Trigo (2003) and
Falck-Zepeda et al. (2010)
The Furman, Porter and Stern model for
determinants of national innovative capacity
Common Innovation
Infrastructure
Cluster-Specific Environment
For Innovation
Cumulative technology
sophistication
Human capital and financial
resources available for R&D
activity
Set of resource commitments and
policy choices
• Investments in education/training
• Intellectual property protection
• Information and communication
technologies
•Openness to international trade
Quality of
Linkages
Plant Breeding
Context for Firm
Strategy and Rivalry
Factor (Input)
Biotechnology Demand
Conditions
Conditions
Related & Supporting
Industries
Source: Based on Furman, Porter, and Stern (2002).
Indicators used
 Overall innovative capacity




Scientific and technical journal articles (average)
Scientific and technical journal articles (sum 1990–2005)
Personal computers
Public spending on education, total (percent of GDP)
 Economy-wide status








GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)
GDP per capita growth (annual percent)
GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international US$)
Industry, value added (percent of GDP)
Industry, value added (annual percent growth)
Agriculture, value added (percent of GDP)
Agriculture, value added (annual percent growth)
Agriculture, value added (millions, constant 2000 US$)
Indicators used (2)

Intellectual property management situation





Number of patent applications, nonresidents (1987–2005, total, WBDI2008)
Number of patents applications, residents(1987–2005, total, WBDI2008)
Total number of patent applications (1987–2005, total, calculated)
Patent applications per million inhabitants (estimated by calculation)
Strength of the private sector
 Domestic credit provided by banking sector (% of GDP, average 1996-2006, WBDI 2008)
 Ease of doing business index (Ranking, 1=most business-friendly regulations, average 2005-2007,
WBDI 2008)
 Cost of business start-up procedures (% of GNI per capita, average 2003-2007, WBDI 2008)
 Time required to enforce a contract (days, average 2002-2007, WBDI 2008)

Market size






Land area (1,000 hectares, FAOSTAT, average 2000–2008)
Arable land (hectares and percent of total, FAOSTAT, average calculated from land and arable land)
Crop production index (average 1997–2004,1999 –2001 = 100, WBDI2008 )
Population millions (average 1997–2006, WBDI2008)
Population growth rates percentage average 1997–2006, WBDI2008 )
Aggregate value of agriculture percent of GDP 1997–2006 WBDI2008)
Indicators used (3)
 Cluster specific
 Biotech capacity subjective classification
 Nonselective importers of tools, methods, and technologies
 Selective importers of tools, methods, and technologies
 Users of biotechnology tools
 Developers of biotechnology tools, methods, and technologies
 Biosafety capacity achieved milestones
 Completed National Biosafety Framework
 Use of interim laws, policies regulations
 Conducted contained, confined or extended field trials
 Allowed commercialization
A flavor of the spreadsheet data estimationeconomy wide indicators
Country
GDP per capita
GDP per capita, PPP
(constant 2000 GDP per capita
(constant 2005
US$)
growth (annual %) international $)
Industry, value
added (% of
GDP)
Agriculture,
Industry, value Agriculture, value added
added (annual value added (annual %
% growth)
(% of GDP) growth)
Agriculture,
value added
(millions,
constant 2000
US$)
Algeria
1,882.2
2.4
5,378.8
53.5
4.1
10.4
5.6
5260.9
Angola
734.3
6.5
2,950.7
67.1
10.5
8.2
11.3
671.6
Benin
311.4
1.3
1,175.9
13.8
4.5
35.3
5.6
840.6
3,680.3
4.8
10,086.0
54.7
7.3
2.7
-1.6
142.8
Burkina
228.6
3.3
957.4
20.4
9.1
32.6
5.9
832.9
Burundi
106.2
-1.6
337.4
17.7
-2.3
43.2
-0.9
255.2
Comoros
379.4
-0.2
1,109.4
11.8
1.5
46.4
2.7
100.4
91.4
-2.1
274.2
23.3
4.4
48.4
-0.7
2213.3
1,036.4
1.1
3,055.1
62.3
1.6
6.9
599.8
-0.6
1,728.0
23.6
2.3
23.9
2.5
2430.1
1,511.9
2.8
4,209.3
33.9
4.6
16.3
3.4
16121.6
Botswana
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo (Republic of)
Côte d'Ivoire
Egypt
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina
Burundi
Cameroon
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo (Republic of)
Côte d'Ivoire
Egypt
4.9n.a.
0.816
0.693
0.428
0.897
0.204
0.02
0.673
0.6
0.96
0.38
0.9
0.76
0.06
0.48
0.836
0.714
0.489
0.918
0.346
0.04
0.673
Percent Rank
0.897
0.979
0.102
0.938
0.367
0.224
0.755
0.425
0.914
0.553
0.765
0.893
0.021
0.51
0.163
0.122
0.653
0
0.612
0.836
0.448
0.851
1
0.829
0
0.893
0.042
0.744
0.934
0.478
0.586
0.195
0.565
0.239
0.739
0
0.04
0
0.469
0.489
0.918
0.063
0.76
0.714
0.653
0.795
0.32
0.14
0.72
0.734
0.653
0.795
0.959
0.51
0.816
0.127
0.148
0.617
0.081
0.469
0.265
0.68n.a.
0.297
0.446
0.804
1
Average Classification
0.69025 +++
0.7325 +++
0.5025 ++
0.576625 ++
0.58 ++
0.18525 +
0.62775 +++
0.342375 ++
0.516429 ++
0.45925 ++
0.68175 +++
Overall GM biotechnology capacity in Africa
Common
innovationinfrastructure
Links, networks and
technology transfer
capacity
Cluster specific environment Overall
Classification
Countries
Overall
innovative
capacity
Economy wide
Strength of the
IP situation status
Market size private sector
Biotechnology
technical capacity
Biosafety regulatory
capacity
Algeria
+++
+++
+++
++
++
+++
+
+++
Angola
++
++
+++
++
++
+
+
+
Burundi
++
++
+
++
+++
+
+
+
Côte d'Ivoire
+++
+
++
++
++
+
+
+
Egypt
+++
+++
+++
++
+++
+++
++
+++
Ethiopia
+++
++
++
+++
++
++
++
++
Ghana
+++
++
++
+++
++
+
+
++
Kenya
+++
+++
++
++
++
++
++
++
Malawi
++
+++
++
++
++
+
+
+
Namibia
+++
+++
++
++
++
+
+
++
Nigeria
+++
++
+++
+++
++
++
++
+++
Rwanda
++
++
++
+++
++
+
+
+
Senegal
+++
+
++
++
++
++
+
+
South Africa
+++
+++
++
++
++
+++
++
+++
Tanzania
+++
++
++
+++
++
++
+
++
Uganda
+++
++
++
+++
++
++
++
++
Zambia
++
+++
++
++
++
++
++
++
Zimbabwe
+++
+++
++
++
+++
++
++
+++
Policy situations to improve biotechnology use in Africa
Policy situation Description
Nonselective
biotechnology
importers
i.
ii.
Countries without any accumulated institutional capacity
Diffusion of new technologies (conventional or biotech) occurs spontaneously or through individual initiatives, without
any supporting institutional framework
Selective
biotechnology
importers
i.
ii.
Countries have an agricultural research infrastructure
Some local capacities for plant/animal improvement while introducing new varieties through local importation and
adaptive testing
Mostly with external donor support, these countries have initiated the process of developing capacity in the biotech
area, through incorporation of conventional biotechnology techniques (i.e. tissue culture), capacity-building programs
dedicated to human resources and even activities tending to the implementation of a national strategy for the biotech
sector development
Have regulatory frameworks in the area of biosafety and intellectual property, but lack experience in their
implementation
iii.
iv.
Biotechnology tools
users
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Biotechnology
Innovators
i.
ii.
iii.
Established institutions and consolidated plant/animal improvement systems, which have a more or less constant rate of
deployment of new varieties developed internally and using biotech tools in their activities
Broader spectrum tools used from tissue and cellular cultures to marker assisted selection and even some genetic
transformation, usually related more to commercial cash and/or export crops, who have a defined technological
support system of their own.
National research systems have a high capacity but it is not evenly developed across the components.
May have some experience in GMO management, even at the level of deliberate release.
Have R&D systems with broad coverage from basic research (development of new techniques) to the development of
specific products for a broad set of crops and species
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.
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.
Mapping countries to policy situations
Policy situation
Nonselective
biotechnology
importers
Selective
biotechnology
importers
Biotechnology
tools users
Biotechnology
Innovators
Policy objective to
further develop
biotechnology capacity
Develop the framework for
using biotechnology
products
Improve the efficiency of
agricultural research
through the use of
biotechnology tools
Improve the efficiency and
R&D products
Take advantage of the
development of innovation
capacity based on
biotechnology applications
and the development of
innovations
Small market
Medium markets
Large markets
Seychelles, São Tomé and
Príncipe, Cape Verde,
Comoros, Mauritius,
Equatorial Guinea,
Swaziland, Gambia, GuineaBissau, 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
Namibia, Ghana, Tunisia
Cameroon, Congo,
Dem. Rep. Sudan, Niger
Uganda, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, Algeria,
Morocco, Zambia,
Kenya
Nigeria
South Africa
Egypt
None
From policy to practice
Source: James, C. 2010: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2010.
ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
Where technical capacities meet the political
realities…
Country
Ban or
Moratorium
Year introduced or
reported
Limits on use
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Yes
Yes
Yes
No GM imports (maize)
Two five year moratoria- in place until 2013.
2000
2004
2002
Botswana
Maize
No GM imports, milled GM food aid
?
Lesotho
?
?
Malawi
Mozambique
Namibia
Nigeria
Sudan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Government advisory that grains to be used only for food not
cultivation
Un-milled products food aid; No GM imports
Un-milled products food aid
Received wheat instead of maize for food; No GM imports
Un-milled products food aid
Allowed import of GM food aid through temporary waivers
2002
?
2002
?
2003
Government advisory that grains to be used only for food not
?
cultivation; Changing GM acceptance/rejection for food aid
No GM imports, no GM food aid in 2002, milled GM food aid in 2002
Zambia
Yes
emergency after
No GM imports (1% tolerance for maize and soybeans), identity 2002
Zimbabwe
Yes
preserved requirements for non-GM, milled GM food aid in
2002, no GM food aid after
Source: based on Falck-Zepeda (2006); Gruere and Sengupta (2010).
Notes: Algeria has also a ban on distribution and commercialization of GM products.
Swaziland
José Benjamin Falck-Zepeda, Ph.D.
IFPRI
2033 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002
USA
j.falck-zepeda@cgiar.org