E. Jane Morris

Rationalizing governance of genetically modified products in developing countries

137 as well. The main problem is that decisions in Europe are often made on political grounds, rather than on a scientific basis. These decisions then influence the way GM policy is formulated and implemented by national governments in many developing countries5. Indeed, the level of concern in much of South America is sufficiently strong that last August, the agriculture ministers from five major crop-producing countries signed a joint declaration that urged the EU (as well as China) to stop delaying GMO import authorizations6. In countries such as Brazil and India, public research and development of locally important GM crops is impeded by an overly stringent application of the precautionary principle. In India, for example, GM mustard, eggplant and chickpea have been entangled in one legal challenge after another and have faced very onerous regulatory measures over the past decade. Rather than creating greater confidence among consumers and farmers, this has contributed to widespread mistrust that continues to metastasize. One result is that risk-assessment decisions for new GM products in India have been repeatedly delayed. This pattern is repeated in many other developing countries that struggle to develop and deploy local GM products (Box 1). The inclusion of socioeconomic considerations in the Cartagena Protocol conflicts with the science-based approach enforced by the WTO. In particular, the ad hoc approach to taking into account socioeconomics, that is neither structured nor evidence-based, has contributed to a ‘go-slow approach’ in developing functional biosafety policy and limiting crop development in many developing countries for the benefit of the population especially countries in Africa. There has been limited progress in defining how socioeconomics should be used in the Cartagena Protocol. Lack of clear definitions and interpretations of socioeconomic considerations and difficulties in measuring unpredictable factors in ex ante studies continue to Rationalizing governance of genetically modified products in developing countries

Moving Africa Towards a Knowledge-Based Bio-economy

The development of a bio-economy in Africa will require enhanced bio-innovation for sustainable development. It will also require structural and policy changes to ensure that the systems are in place to support the bio-economy. Already, many developed and developing countries are placing emphasis on the development of a bio-economy, and African countries must not be left behind.

Genetically Modified Crops Commercialized in South Africa

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been in commercial production in South Africa since 1997, when Bt cotton and maize were approved by an advisory committee acting under interim legislation. The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Act was passed in 1997, but only implemented in 1999. The Act was modified in 2006 to bring it into line with the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The area planted to GM crops has steadily increased, with the majority of maize, soybeans and cotton being GM. Problems with field-resistance to Bt in Busseola fusca in maize started in 2007, linked to very low levels of compliance among farmers in planting refugia. This continues to be a problem. Smallholder GM maize farmers in KwaZulu–Natal have been planting this crop since 2001, and have experienced higher yields and other benefits. South Africa is experiencing a number of delays with approvals of new GM crops, particularly those developed, at least in part, in this country. Additionally, the Biotechnology Innovation Centers established after the publication of the National Biotechnology Strategy in 2001 have been closed and incorporated into a new Technology Innovation Agency (TIA). As TIA has been largely dysfunctional since 2010 this has created a hiatus in funding. As a result of these problems South Africa is currently at a crossroads in terms of the development and adoption of GM crops. For the country to move forward, bold steps are required, and a number of recommendations are listed.