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