BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY DORCAS W. KAMUNYA FOR CONSUMER INFORMATION NETWORK KENYA. March 2010

Transcription

1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY BY DORCAS W. KAMUNYA FOR CONSUMER INFORMATION NETWORK KENYA March 2010

2 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... 3 ABBREVIATIONS... 4 INTRODUCTION... 5 CARTAGENA PROTOCOL... 6 MAIN COMPONENTS... 6 ARTICLE 1 OBJECTIVE... 7 ARTICLE 23 - PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION... 7 ARTICLE 20 - INFORMATION SHARING AND BIOSAFETY CLEARING HOUSE... 7 ARTICLE 15 - RISK ASSESSMENT... 7 ARTICLE 16 - RISK MANAGEMENT... 7 GMO CONTEXT RESEARCH... 8 DOMESTICATION OF THE CPB... 8 BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORKS IN KENYA... 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOSAFETY ACT, GMO FOOD/FEED STANDARDS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE BIO-AWARE PROGRAM KBIOC Kenya Biodiversity Coalition OPEN FORUM ON AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, OFAB UGANDA TANZANIA BIOTECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES AFRICA GMO CROPS GMO IMPORTATION TESTING FACILITIES IN KENYA CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT During the development of this document various individuals and institutions played a key role in providing information that made this work a success; their input is appreciated with utmost sincerity. Special thanks go to the CEO of CIN, Mr. Samuel J. Ochieng, Consumers International staff implementing the global project and EC for their support to the project that lead to the development of this document. Participants who took part in meetings/workshops and trainings that helped to gather more information are truly appreciated. Dorcas Kamunya Programmes Coordinator Consumer Information Network P.O. Box , Nairobi dorcas@consumerupdate.org and admin@consumerupdate.org 3

4 ABBREVIATIONS BCH Biosafety Clearing House CFT Confined Field Trial CIN - Consumer Information Network CPB Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety CSOs Civil Society Organisations EAC East African Community FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GMOs Genetically Modified Organisms LMO Living Modified Organism KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KBIOC Kenya Biodiversity Coalition KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services MOA Ministry of Agriculture MOH Ministry of Health NBC National Biosafety Committee NEMA National Environment Management Authority OFAB Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology WFP World Food Program NBF National Biosafety Framework PBS Program of Biosafety Systems UNEP GEF United Nations Environment Program Global Environment Fund 4

5 INTRODUCTION Genetic Modification is a new technology that involves manipulation of genes in a certain plant or animal. Either a new gene can be introduced from an organism [plant, micro-organism or animal] or a gene in a given plant or animal can be removed or silenced to avoid its expression. The result of this manipulation is genetically modified organism [GMO] or living modified organism [LMO]. Gene manipulation is being done in order to give desired traits of the host organism. The main traits in plants that have undergone genetic manipulation are herbicide resistance and pest resistance. In animals vaccines are also being developed for certain diseases like Rift Valley Fever among others. This technology has both potential risks and benefits that should be evaluated before a decision on whether they are safe for transfer to farmers and consumers. The potential benefits accrue as a result of reduced chemical use, lack of produce loss to the pests and enhanced nutrition. The potential risks on the other hand include allerginicity, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, negative influence on the natural biological diversity among others. Different countries around the world have taken different stands as they try to find out more on this new technology. Some have decided to invest in other technologies that would enhance agricultural productivity while others have fully embraced the new technology This study is being done as part of the 2 years project titled, Consumer Organisations and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Protecting the Consumer s Right to a Healthy Environment in the Developing World. The project is being done in Mali, Morocco, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia and Azerbaijan. The main objective of this study is to provide information on the status of genetic modification activities at national and regional levels. This information will be very crucial in the implementation of the other project activities. 5

6 CARTAGENA PROTOCOL The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity was developed for the purpose of addressing biodiversity issues. It focuses on conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of natural resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. The protocol is the only instrument governing GMOs. The instrument emphasizes on the need to protect human health and the environment from the possible adverse effects of the products of modern biotechnology. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signatures in It was later finalized and adopted in 2000 in Montreal, Canada at an extra ordinary meeting of the Conference of Parties. The protocol entered into force on 11 th September The first meeting of parties was held in Malaysia in February The East African Community [EAC] countries Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have accepted to adopt the new technology by ratifying the protocol. Kenya ratified in May 2002, Uganda ratified November 2001 and Tanzania acceded in April MAIN COMPONENTS The CP has 40 articles and 2 annexes as follows. Article 1 objective Article 2 General Provisions Article 3 Uses of terms Article 4 scope Article 5 Pharmaceuticals Article 6 transit and contained use Article 7 application of the advance informed agreement procedure Article 8 notification Article 9 acknowledgement of receipt of notification Article 10 decision procedure Article 11 procedure for living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing. Article 12 review of decisions Article 13 simplified procedure Article 14 bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements. Article 15 risk assessment Article 16 risk management Article 17 unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures Article 18 handling, transport, packaging and identification. Article 19 competent national authorities and national focal point. Article 20 information sharing and biosafety clearing house Article 21 confidential information Article 22 capacity building Article 23 public awareness and participation. Article 24 non-parties Article 25 illegal transboundary movements. Article 26 socio-economic considerations Article 27 liability and redress Article 28 financial mechanisms and resources Article 29 conference of parties serving as meeting of the parties to this protocol Article 30 subsidiary bodies Article 31 secretariat Article 32 relationship with the convention. Article 33 monitoring and reporting Article 34 compliance Article 35 assessment and review Article 36 signature Article 37 entry into force Article 38 reservations Article 39 withdrawal Article 40 authentic text Annex I information required in notifications under articles 8, 10 and 13 Annex II information required concerning living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing under article 11 Annex III risk assessment 6

7 ARTICLE 1 OBJECTIVE The objective of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety [CPB] is to ensure and adequate level of protection of modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity while also taking into consideration risks to human health and focuses on transboundary movements. ARTICLE 23 - PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION This article puts a lot of emphasis on the need to involve the public in decision making process regarding conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity while also considering the risks to human health. The parties to the protocol should promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation on safe transfer and handing of living modified organisms. Parties are also supposed to inform the public on the means of public access to the biosafety clearing house. ARTICLE 20 - INFORMATION SHARING AND BIOSAFETY CLEARING HOUSE Parties should put in place a biosafety clearing house for the purpose of a. Facilitate exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information regarding LMOs. b. Assist parties to implement the protocol with particular emphasis on the developing countries. c. Sharing existing laws, regulations and guidelines for the implementation of the protocol. d. Any bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and arrangements. e. Summaries of its risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs. f. Its final decision regarding importation or release of living modified organisms. g. Reports on implementation of the advance informed agreement procedure. ARTICLE 15 - RISK ASSESSMENT Risk assessment to human health shall be done in a scientific manner while taking into account the recognized techniques. Any importer shall ensure that risk assessment is carried out for decisions on whether to import food for direct consumption as food or feed or for processing. The exporter may be required to carry out the risk assessment. ARTICLE 16 - RISK MANAGEMENT Parties shall establish and maintain appropriate mechanisms, measures and strategies to regulate, manage and control risks identified relating to use, handling and transboundary movement. Measures based on risk assessment shall be imposed to prevent adverse effects of living modified organisms on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and risks to human health. Parties shall take measure to prevent unintentional trasboundary movement. Parties shall also ensure that LMOs whether imported or locally developed has undergone appropriate period of observation before being put into the intended use. Parties shall cooperate in identifying LMOs or specific traits of LMOs that may have adverse effects on the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of biological diversity taking into consideration the risks to human health. Parties shall take appropriate measures regarding treatment of such LMOs or specific traits 7

8 GMO CONTEXT RESEARCH DOMESTICATION OF THE CPB Many countries have domesticated the CPB by formulating relevant policies and regulations to govern the GMOs. In EAC all countries are party to the convention either through signing and ratification or by accession. The table below shows the commitment of countries in Africa at different times NO. COUNTRY CARTAGENA PROTOCOL DATE EFFECTIVE 1. Burundi Not signed - 2. DRC Accession 23 June Eritrea Accession 10 March Ethiopia Signed / Ratified 24 May 2000/ 09 Oct Kenya Signed / Ratified 15 May 2000 / 24 June Madagascar Signed / Ratified 14 Sept / 24 Nov Rwanda Signed / Ratified 24 May 2000 / 22 July Sudan Accession 13 June Tanzania Accession 24 April Uganda Signed / Ratified 29 May 2000 / 30 Nov Source Mugoya 2006 In the EAC countries are at different levels of domestication of the CP. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have made deliberate efforts to put in place relevant legislative framework. BIOSAFETY FRAMEWORKS IN KENYA In the past Kenya received numerous financial and technical assistances during the development of the National Biosafety Framework, NBF. UNEP GEF program assisted in developing the Biosafety Bill while the Program on Biosafety Systems [PBS] has assisted in building capacity of the staff in regulatory institutions and the NBC members for handling GMOs applications. Kenya was the first country in the EAC to draft biosafety regulations and guidelines though the National Council for Science and Technology Act in The regulations cover the importation or release of GMOs for laboratory use and commercialization. The regulations also established the National Biosafety Committee [NBC] which has a multi-stakeholder composition. The role of the NBC is to advise the Kenyan government on all issues relating to biosafety and biotechnology. NBC membership The members of this committee are drawn from government agencies and CSOs, however if need arises others can be co-opted. At the moment the members include i. University of Nairobi UoN Chairman ii. National Council for Science and Technology NCST Secretariat iii. Kenyatta University KU iv. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology - JKUAT v. Ministry of Agriculture MoA vi. Ministry of Health Public Health Department MoH PH vii. Kenya Bureau of Standards KEBS viii. Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services KEPHIS ix. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KARI x. Department of Veterinary Services - DVS xi. National Environment Management Authority NEMA xii. Kenya Industrial Property Institute KIPI xiii. Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers KENFAP xiv. Seed Trade Association of Kenya STAK 8

9 xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. Attorney Generals Chamber - AG Ministry of Education MoE Consumer Information Network CIN Kenya Medical Research Institute - KEMRI International Livestock Research Institute ILRI African Biosafety Stakeholders Forum ABSF The National Biotechnology Development Policy was approved by cabinet in This gave way to the development of a biosafety bill which was finally accented to by the President in February Before the Biosafety Bill became law it was developed and debated on for over 10 years. The act was developed by NCST will support from the NBC members who were the key stakeholders. Before being passed into an Act of Parliament, it failed to go through the third reading in December After it was tabled the second time in 2008; it sailed the last reading almost the last minute before parliament went for recess. The passing of the third reading was welcomed with a lot of joy by the scientists and stakeholders who believe biotechnology is the way to go for development in Kenyan agriculture. On the other hand CSOs who believe that Kenyan agriculture cannot develop by application of modern biotechnology protested against the move claiming that parliament was misguided on the matter and did not understand well what they passed at law. The debate between the 2 camps continued for some time and the president was seen to be reluctant in accenting to the Act. Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, KBIOC for example campaigned for the rejection of a biosafety bill that was to be debated by parliament. The coalition organized demonstrations in the food basket region of Kenya, Rift Valley Province and issued press statements on their dissatisfaction. The CSOs organizations complained that the bill did not adequately address the CPB issues, liability, redress and labeling were other issues raised by the coalition. Farmers right to save and share indigenous seeds was not respected. Even before the Biosafety Act, 2009 was approved, Kenya had gone ahead to approve applications to introduce GMOs for research purposes. The authorized research activities are as follows GM sweet potato, maize, cotton, rinderpest vaccine and cassava. Another application to introduce a GM marked rinderpest vaccine. Most of these activities are being carried out by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute [KARI] in collaboration with international research institutions. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute developed the first green house to be able to undertake research on genetically modified organism. The institution has several research stations all over the country where some of the confined trials are done. Kenyatta University and Nairobi University also have green houses which are used for lab trials. Other institutions are also coming up with facilities to help test the agricultural biotechnology applications under confinement. All activities on modern biotechnology are approved or rejected by National Biosafety Committee. The NBC uses regulations developed by NCST to screen applications by institutions for authenticity and completeness. Every institution involved in biotechnology activities is tasked to form an Institutional Biosafety Committee, IBC which advices and guides the applicant in filling the form and carrying out the research. The IBC screens the application form first before forwarding to NBC for action. After going through the application the NBC has the authority to approve a scientist to carry on the intended work or reject an application based on scientific justification. NBC has lead agencies that advices other members on particular issues relating to any approved research work. NBC, through lead agencies monitors the progress of approved work and reports to all members, sometimes field visits are organized to members to see for themselves the kind of work being done. 9

10 IMPLEMENTATION OF BIOSAFETY ACT, 2009 The passing of Biosafety Bill into law called for establishment of National Biosafety Authority, NBA that should be responsible in all matters pertaining to genetically modified organisms and connected purposes. The main objectives of the Act are To facilitate responsible research into, and minimize the risks that may be posed, by GMOs. To ensure an adequate level of protection for the safe transfer handling and use of GMOs that may have adverse effects on health of the people and the environment. To establish a transparent, science based and predictable process for reviewing and making decisions on the transfer, handling and use of GMOs and related activities. Main activities of the NBA include; Consider and determine applications for approval for the transfer, handling and use of GMOs and related activities in accordance with the provisions of the act. Coordinate, monitor and assess activities relating to the safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs so as to minimize risks to human health and environment. Coordinate research and surveys in matters relating to the safe development, transfer, handling and use of GMOs. To identify national requirements for manpower development and capacity building in biosafety. To advice the government on legislative and other measures relating to the safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs. To promote awareness and education among the general public in matters relating to biosafety. To perform any other function which is incidental to the performance of any of the foregoing functions. Towards the end of last year government officers who have been involved in NBC activities from the National Council for Science and Technology and Ministry for Science and Technology were deployed to establish the institution. Currently, there are about 13 staff members of NBA who are preparing to fully undertake the mandate of the institution as stipulated in the Act. The NBC and staff of NBA are working hard to develop regulations that will guide their operation. Its is expected that by March 2010 about 4 sets of regulations will be approved for use while others will continue to be developed. The Minister for Science and Technology is also expected to announce member of the board that will give policy direction to the Authority. GMO FOOD/FEED STANDARDS Kenya, through Kenya Bureau of Standards, KEBS, the institution mandated to develop minimum standards for food, feed and other consumer products and services recently developed a standard on labeling of GMO food, feed and derived products. The standard which is under Public Review stage until 6 th February 2010 has attracted a lot of interest from interested stakeholders. CIN, a member of Biotechnology Committee at KEBS consulted widely and gathered a lot of comments from the draft standard. The comments have since been forwarded to KEBS for compilation and a meeting will be organized soon to discuss all comments received from stakeholders. NBA is waiting to gazettement of the labeling standard so that the labeling regulations can borrow from the standard. Manufacturers of various products are also waiting for the standard so that when GMOs are finally commercialized in Kenya they can have a direction on what and how to label. Consumers and the general public on the other hand have given their opinion on the need for mandatory labeling to enable them make informed choices on what they consume. 10

11 EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 23 BIO-AWARE PROGRAM The Ministry of Agriculture launched a national biotechnology awareness creation strategy for in efforts to comply with article 23 of the protocol. This initiative was put forward after the government realized that there was limited access to accurate and balanced information on biotechnology. There is controversy over biotechnology issues and weak communication. Vision a well informed and knowledgeable society capable of making decisions and choices on responsible use of biotechnology and its products. Mission to empower the Kenyan public to make informed decisions on the use of biotechnology and its products through a participatory awareness creation process. Mandate to provide a framework within which strategies and specific actions can be undertaken to promote awareness and understanding of the role of biotechnology in the country s development agenda. The objectives of BIOAWARE are: i. Facilitate operationalisation of a secretariat for coordinating biotechnology awareness creation. ii. Create mechanism of Biotechnology Information and Resource Centres [BIRCs] to serve as focal points for information provision, knowledge- sharing and rapid response. iii. Facilitate establishment of National Biotechnology Awareness Creation Fund. iv. Facilitate production, packaging and dissemination of accurate, authoritative and timely biotechnology information, education and communication materials to various stakeholders. v. Initiate mechanism for mainstreaming of biotechnology into the curricula of schools and tertiary institutions of learning. vi. Create a linkage with the National Biosafety Clearing House. vii. Develop a participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The program has a steering sub-committee with member from i. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KARI ii. Kenyatta University KU iii. International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA iv. African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum ABSF v. National Council for Science and Technology NCST vi. Ministry of Agriculture MOA. Unlike the NBC the members are from government and CSOs who promote adoption of genetic engineering techniques. This solicits funds from its steering committee members. In Kenya majority of stakeholders seem to be anti or pro genetic engineering and a few stakeholders are neutral. The public has received mixed information depending on who is delivering it, this ends up confusing them further. The CSOs are also divided over the issues; the public interest and those with private motives. CSOs that are private and receiving funds from multinational companies that invest resources on biotechnology have done a lot of lobbying and advocacy mainly on the benefit of GMOs leaving out the negative aspects of the technology. 11

12 KBIOC Kenya Biodiversity Coalition KBIOC is a coalition of 67 member organizations representing farmers and farmers, animal welfare groups, consumers, religious groups. The coalition was branded KBIOC in 2007 after its previous name Kenya GMO Concern, KEGCO became too limiting to the diverse work members were carrying out. The main objective of the coalition is to do conserve the biological diversity through sustainable consumption and production. Most of the members are conversant with the agricultural biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques that are or can be applied in plant and animal production. However, majority of farmers and consumers they represent do not understand the topic well. Some of the farmers in rural areas do not differentiate products of biotechnology such as tissue culture and genetically modified organisms. Agricultural biotechnology The lowest level of biotechnology [tissue culture] is acceptable to members and farmers have been using this technology to increase their incomes and improve food security; a typical example is tissue culture banana. For Kenya to embrace agricultural biotechnology fully there is need to build on the indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainability in terms of seed and food security by using natural resources in a sustainable manner. At the moment there are no concerns about this technology as it has proved to be beneficial to farmers and the public. KBIOC concerns on genetic engineering/gmos The members have several concerns enumerated below; Impacts of GE/GMOs on the environment are not always known especially the long term effects; this poses a threat to the natural ecosystem where one organism depends on the other, if one is eliminated them there is a high possibility for imbalances. Food and feed safety is not always guaranteed by producers of products from this technology. This technology therefore poses a risk to human and animal health. Right of farmers to own seeds is being wiped out by the Intellectual Property Rights regime whereby farmers do not share any benefit accruing from their indigenous knowledge and genetic resources. The private sector are profit driven and do not care about the public and farmers who have a stake in the products that are being modified. Due to the negative impacts of this technology on environment, human health, affordability, socio-economic factors and benefit sharing there is no likelihood of farmers benefiting from the products of this technology. The potential risks and impacts far outweigh any benefit of this technology. Challenges of agricultural biotechnology Farmers planting tissue culture bananas are concerned of the diminishing yields after 2-3 years of harvesting; it has been noted that in the beginning the yields are high and reduce every year. The use of irrigation for the bananas is another limiting factor for some farmers who would like to embrace this technology. Challenges of genetic engineering The main challenge for the farmers is that they cannot be able to differentiate conventional and genetic engineered seeds. Testing is expensive for farmers therefore rely on the information given to them by stockists of various seeds. Domestication of CPB by stakeholders is a challenge due to poor infrastructure and inadequate resources, for example there is low knowledge amongst the public and farmers therefore all stakeholders are not fully involved in decision making processes regarding genetic engineering. 12

13 Challenges of conventional agriculture There is a high turnover of hybrid seeds this inconsistency confuses farmers in the long run. Some farmers do not have the knowledge on what seeds are best for their agronomic conditions. Inadequate water is a problem to some areas yet the soils are fertile. Coordination of farmer groups to access big markets is a big challenge since most of the farmers are small scale and cannot satisfy specific clients solely. Poor infrastructure in most parts of the rural areas leads to inaccessibility of markets especially during the rainy seasons. The high cost of input has lead to poor production as farmers struggle to make ends meet. During harvesting time prices of the produce are mostly low, the brokers worsen the situation making some farmers incur losses. OPEN FORUM ON AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, OFAB On the other hand there are CSOs that have been promoting application of biotechnology and believe that the technology has a lot of potential in Kenya and other African countries. Kenya was one of the leading countries in Africa that came up Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology [OFAB] established in Every end of the month the OFAB fraternity meets for a luncheon to discuss biotechnology topics which have direct impact on Kenyan farmers. The founders of OFAB believe that biotechnology will establish lasting credibility when successful products are in farmers fields in Africa, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. OFAB was envisaged to bring together stakeholders in biotechnology to enable interactions between scientists, journalists, civil society, students, industrialists, lawmakers and policy makers. This would help build consensus on issues of public health. The forum was officially inaugurated by the Minister of Science and Technology, Dr. Noah Wekesa in September 2006; in his speech he reiterated the government s commitment to agricultural biotechnology. Biotechnology has the potential to create wealth if used responsibly; Africa must invest heavily in science and technology to escape extreme poverty. Since biotechnology is one of the most talked about subject there is need to create consensus on critical issues between the two camps that have differing views and opinion on the potential for biotechnology. The forum should facilitate a flow of information where those who have the information and knowledge share openly with those who need it to make informed decisions. The organizers and sponsors of OFAB are African Agricultural Technology Foundation, AAFT and International Service for Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ISAAA; both organizations are based in Nairobi with African and global mandate to communicate biotechnology issues, build public/private partnerships to help in acquisition of agricultural biotechnology applications for the benefit of resource poor farmers in developing countries. During the monthly lunch meetings speakers are invited from diverse backgrounds across the world to share knowledge on selected topic for the day. OFAB is made possible by a programming committee that is made up of scientists from government and CSOs promoting use of modern biotechnology techniques. UGANDA Uganda started drafting its biosafety regulations under the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology [UNCST] in The regulations were part of the National Biosafety Frameworks [NBF] approved by the Ministry of Lands, Water and Environment in March Through the NBF the UNCST was mandated to be the competent authority for biotechnology and biosafety and to provide the overall policy framework. 13

14 Uganda has only approved transgenic banana expressing resistance to leaf spot disease. The biotechnology activities are under the National Agricultural Research Organisation [NARO] TANZANIA There is no single legislative instrument that addresses biosafety concerns as such a number of sectoral legislation covering plant protection, animal and human health, environmental protection and natural resource management address biosafety. In 2004 the country developed NBF which envisages the development of policy and regulatory directives for GMOs, for example a confined field trial directive has been developed for appending to the regulations of the Plant Protection Act Tanzania is undertaking biotechnology activities relating to molecular marker techniques for germplasm characterization and disease diagnosis. These activities are taking place at the Agricultural Research Institute [ARI]. Other activities being done include studies on genetic diversity and fingerprinting of different crops such as coconut, cashew nuts, coffee, sweet potatoes and cassava. BIOTECH ACTIVITIES AFRICA The table below shows the various GMOs that have been introduced for different reasons and the level of application. NO. COUNTRY GM / TRANS GENIC CROP CHACTERISTICS 1 Egypt Potato Cotton Maize Insect and virus resistance Stress and insect resistance Insect and fungal resistance Faba Beans 2 Kenya Sweet Potato Confined Field Trial [CFT] Cotton CFT Maize CFT Cassava CFT Capriprox [FVF] - CFT Stress and virus resistance Virus resistance Stress and insect resistance Insect and fungal resistance Stress and virus resistance Recombinant vaccine 3 Uganda Banana Insect and fungal resistance 4 South Africa Potato Cotton Tomato Tobacco Maize 5 Zimbabwe Cotton Tobacco Source Wafula and Nderitu 1996 [modified] Insect and virus resistance Stress and insect resistance Insect and fungal resistance Insect resistance It should be noted that in Tanzania there is no genetic engineering crop being tested or commercialized. Tanzania developed a Bill that was to be debated in parliament but the public rejected and advised their Members of Parliament not to pass it. The MPs heeded to the publics outcry and never passed the biotechnology bill in their parliament, until now there is no progress on the legal framework at the parliament level. GMO CROPS In Africa Kenya is the second after South Africa in embracing genetic engineering activities. The neighbouring countries i.e. Tanzania and Uganda are still Unlike South Africa where GMOs have 14

15 been commercialized Kenya is still in the research stage ranging from laboratory to confined field trials. There has been no official commercialization of GMOs in Kenya. The trials being carried out are done by public institutions which are Kenya Agricultural Research Institute [KARI] and public universities Kenyatta, Nairobi and Jomo Kenyatta universities. The GM material for trial normally come from abroad US and Europe together with financial and technical assistance. GMO IMPORTATION Kenya is a net food importing country hence receives food from various countries. Imported food is never routinely tested for the GMO status thus very difficult to tell if the country receives GMOs in form of processed food or not. Some of the food being imported include infant formula from South Africa and Germany, processed cereal foods from US and Europe, maize seed from South Africa, corn from US among others. FOOD AID Maize is the staple food for Kenyans. Unfortunately, Kenya is never able to produce enough for consumption. The deficits are normally met by food aid or food import by government or private sector. Ever year there are 2 million people who depend on food aid. Normally food aid comes from US through the World Food Program [WFP]. It is estimated that about 80% of the food aid coming from WFP is genetically modified. TESTING FACILITIES IN KENYA In Kenya there is only one equipped laboratory that can carry out tests on GMOs. The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services [KEPHIS] a regulatory institution under the Ministry of Agriculture was funded by FAO to come up with the laboratory. Other institutions in the country are supposed to use the same facility incase they need to carry out tests. However the tests that can be carried out are only to give positive or negative results but the facilities cannot give the percentage of modifications, this is a limiting factor to clients/public who would want to know the amounts/levels of GMOs in a given product. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The CPB should guide Kenya in its move the modernize agriculture; keeping in mind that the protocol serves as a minimum standard for GMOs and related work. Kenya is moving fast in embracing modern biotechnology; the main drivers are development countries that believe there is potential in developing countries. Kenya is the first country in EAC to put in place a legal framework and an institution that will deal with GMOs alone. Even though GMOs have not yet been commercialized in Kenya it cannot be ruled out that there have been no imports of the same. This can easily happen since the institutions mandated to carry out surveillance are not well equipped to carry out their mandate. From the CSOs perspective Kenya s agriculture is faced with so many problems and one technology cannot be in a position to feed the hungry and end malnutrition. Kenya needs to properly assess the potential of modern biotechnology and apply it selectively without harming other sectors that it has for along time benefited from. For example, consider the major importers of agricultural produce from Kenya and what they stand for before making unnecessary moves. 15

16 All the institutions concerned with regulating modern biotechnology should have all the needed capacity in terms of infrastructure and human resource to be able to handle the new technology with a lot of competence. All stakeholders should be involved in decision making processes regarding issues of GMOs that affect them directly or indirectly. 16