**3. State of biotechnology policy environment in SSA**

As stated earlier, application of biotechnology requires systems that ensure there is adequate capacity to develop and apply the technologies safely; promote research, extension, and wider adoption; and regulate the sector to assure sustainable use of resources, environmental and human safety. These components together include the national biosafety policies, statutes passed by parliament and specific regulations linked to the statutes, administrative and technical systems for risk assessment, public awareness and participation, decision-making, enforcement and monitoring. This section audits the policy environment by assessing indicators and evidence for promotion and support for biotechnology development through research funds, support to adoption through extension services, existence of policies, laws and regulations, and specific agency that regulates the use of biotechnology within each sector (crops, forestry, livestock, and aquaculture) and overall across sectors. Scores—ranging from very low or very weak to very high or very strong—are assigned to each country based on information (qualitative and quantitative) gathered from various sources, which then forms the basis of the classification.

### **3.1 Policy and biosafety frameworks**

Countries in SSA are at different levels of development and implementation of NBFs. The levels and extents of development of the frameworks largely depend on their adherence to, and domestication of, key international agreements, the political good will as well as human and financial capacities. SSA countries started putting in place biosafety legislation in the 1990s; today, only 18 countries have biosafety


**163**

*Biotechnology in Agricultural Policies of Sub-Saharan Africa*

**Country Biosafety framework** *(policy, law,* 

Tanzania Has NBF; Biotech policy 2010; Environment

commercialized

Committee

Zambia Has elements of NBF; Biosafety Act 2007

research allowed

Zimbabwe Has elements of NBF; National Biotech

GMO banned

*Status of policy environment for biotechnology in some notable SSA countries.*

*CFT, confined field trial*

**Table 1.**

Uganda Has NBF; National biosafety bill 2012, (Passed

*regulations, guidelines, and institutions)*

Management Act 2004; Biosafety regulation 2009; National Biosafety Committee; strict liability regulations revised in 2015 to allow CFTs; strict liability remains if product is

2017; referred back to Parliament); Biosafety guidelines 1995; Draft Biotech and Biosafety Policy 2013; National Biotechnology Policy 2008; Uganda NCST; National Biosafety

(revised 2013); National Biosafety Policy 2013; National Biosafety Authority 2013; no

Authority Act 2000; Biosafety guidelines 1998; National Biotechnology Authority; no research allowed; cultivation and imports of **GE crops**

—

—

Maize; no ER

Banana, maize, cassava, rice, cotton, potato, soybean; no ER

legislation in place (**Table 1**). The majority of these (9) were passed in the period 2006–2010. The extent to which biotechnology has contributed to agricultural productivity in various countries is closely linked with, and has been dictated by, the policy/political landscape and the nature of legislation enacted to govern the technology. The lack of biosafety legislation, biotechnology policies, and absence of biosafety procedures in several countries continues to be a major gap and a significant impediment and discouragement to research institutions that are willing to undertake high-end biotech R&D. This is because the institutions are not able to obtain approvals from regulatory authorities, or because processes for application are opaque and tedious, and generally the institutional landscape does not encour-

*GE, genetically engineered; ER, environmental release; CR, commercial release; NPT, national performance trial;* 

In terms of ranking for policy environment for development, application, and adoption of biotechnology across sectors, Republic of South Africa is comparatively very strong in all sectors except fisheries and aquaculture. Five (5) other countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sudan) are "strong" across sectors in enabling environment for application of agricultural biotechnologies. Eight (8) are medium, while the rest are either weak (8) or very weak (22), as summarized in **Table 2**. In comparison, more than half of the countries in SSA have a weak enabling environment in all the sectors. When looked at in terms of two categories, as either weak or strong, three-quarters (75%) of the countries cluster in the weak category, with only 10 countries appearing as above average or strong. This category comprises Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Three countries (Ethiopia, Sudan, and Zambia) cannot confidently be assigned to either of these two groupings because they clas-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85567*

age R&D with significant biotech content.

sify with a wide variation across sectors.


*CFT, confined field trial*

#### **Table 1.**

*Elements of Bioeconomy*

**Country Biosafety framework** *(policy, law,* 

Burkina Faso Has NBF; Act 2006 (revised 2013); Biosafety

Cameroon Has NBF; Biosafety Act 2003 (revised 2007); Biosafety guidelines 1995

Egypt Legislation under review; robust R&D; past commercial release

Ethiopia Has framework and R&D; product approved for commercial release

Ghana Act 2011 (Enacted into law 2012); Regulatory

Biotech; NBC

Authority

Kenya Has NBF; National Biotechnology Policy

Lesotho Has some elements of NBF; National Biosafety

Mali Has NBF; Biosafety law 2008; Biosafety decree

Industry and Food Security

research prohibited

Mozambique Has NBF; Biosafety law 2007 (revised 2012);

Namibia Has elements of NBF; Biotechnology and

NCRST; no research

Nigeria Has NBF; Biosafety bill 2011 (bill still in

Sudan Has NBF; Law of Biosafety 2010; National

Biosafety Council

Swaziland Has elements of NBF; Biosafety Act 2012; legislation under review

Mauritius Has elements of NBF; GMO Act 2004;

Malawi Has NBF; Act 2002; Biosafety guidelines

*regulations, guidelines, and institutions)*

Decree 2004; Biosafety Law 2011; Policy on Biotech; National Biosafety Authority

Communication Strategy 2014; Regulatory framework yet to be finalized; Policy on

2006; Biosafety Act 2009; 4 biosafety Regulation 2011, 2012; National Biosafety

bill 2005; amended 2014; National biosafety policy; National biosafety awareness strategy 2013; National Biosafety Council; no research

1995; Biosafety regulatory framework 2007; National Biotech policy 2008; draft legislation

2010; National Biosafety Committee; GMO

Plant Protection Bill 2006; Ministry of Agro

draft biosafety regulations; GIIBS; NBC

biosafety policy 1999; Biosafety Act 2006; Draft legislation; Biosafety Council of the

Senate); Biosafety guidelines 2001; National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA)

Has robust NBF; GMO Act 1997; Biosafety guidelines; National Biotechnology Policy and Strategy 2001; Directorate of Biosafety

Biosafety framework 2008; Sudan National

**GE crops**

Cowpea; CR of cotton suspended in 2016—discussions underway to restore with new variety

Cotton; no ER of any product

Wheat, potato; CR of maize suspended due to regulatory changes in 2012, with all GM

enset in CFTs

—

—

—

Sugarcane

Enset, maize, cotton; CR of cotton approved in June 2018; maize,

Cotton, cowpea, rice; but no ER

Cotton, maize, cassava, banana, sweet potato, gypsophila flower, sorghum; NPT for cotton underway, for maize pending; Import ban on GM since 2012

Banana, cowpea, cotton; NPT for cotton advanced; no ER

Maize, cotton; no ER; *Bt* maize ready for ER; Bt/DT stack in CFT

Cotton, cassava, cowpea, sorghum, soybean; CR of cotton

Maize, soybean, cotton, wheat, potato, sugarcane; CR for cotton in 1997, maize in 1998, and

Cotton; CR of cotton approved

Cotton; CR of cotton approved in

approved in July 2018

soybean in 2001

in 2012

May 2018

**162**

Republic of South

Africa

*Status of policy environment for biotechnology in some notable SSA countries.*

legislation in place (**Table 1**). The majority of these (9) were passed in the period 2006–2010. The extent to which biotechnology has contributed to agricultural productivity in various countries is closely linked with, and has been dictated by, the policy/political landscape and the nature of legislation enacted to govern the technology. The lack of biosafety legislation, biotechnology policies, and absence of biosafety procedures in several countries continues to be a major gap and a significant impediment and discouragement to research institutions that are willing to undertake high-end biotech R&D. This is because the institutions are not able to obtain approvals from regulatory authorities, or because processes for application are opaque and tedious, and generally the institutional landscape does not encourage R&D with significant biotech content.

In terms of ranking for policy environment for development, application, and adoption of biotechnology across sectors, Republic of South Africa is comparatively very strong in all sectors except fisheries and aquaculture. Five (5) other countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sudan) are "strong" across sectors in enabling environment for application of agricultural biotechnologies. Eight (8) are medium, while the rest are either weak (8) or very weak (22), as summarized in **Table 2**. In comparison, more than half of the countries in SSA have a weak enabling environment in all the sectors. When looked at in terms of two categories, as either weak or strong, three-quarters (75%) of the countries cluster in the weak category, with only 10 countries appearing as above average or strong. This category comprises Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Three countries (Ethiopia, Sudan, and Zambia) cannot confidently be assigned to either of these two groupings because they classify with a wide variation across sectors.


#### **Table 2.**

*Classification of countries on basis of enabling policy environment for biotechnology.*

### **3.2 Public and private investments**

While the formulation of policy and establishment of biosafety frameworks are principally a function of the political will of the country, and not necessarily resource-endowment, a major aspect of the enabling environment that seems to challenge the majority of SSA countries is "resourcing" of biotechnology programs. This includes investments in capital items (labs, equipment, etc.), human resources, and operations. Although precise value of agricultural biotechnology spending is difficult to obtain, estimates (focusing only on crops and livestock) obtained from IFPRI's Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) database (www. asti.cgiar.org) show that SSA countries invest very limited amounts on agricultural R&D generally, and agricultural biotechnology in particular. Staffing levels (FTEs) from ASTI data indicate low levels of staffing in the majority of countries. Although FTEs (which is only one of the aspects of investment) cannot be used to fairly interpret the level of public or private sector investment (because a section of the experts may have been trained outside their countries, either through incoming scholarships or self-sponsored programs), the low numbers point to a low level of public investment. The total agricultural research for development (ARD) spending takes a similar pattern to policy frameworks, that is, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria are consistently among the top in terms of ARD spending. As expected, private investments in ARD in SSA are mainly directed toward high-value crops and non-traditional products such as cut flowers. A recent development is the proliferation of private agribusiness investment funds targeting African agriculture. In addition, although progress is slow since Maputo Declaration (in 2003), the position as at 2015 (lead up to Malabo Declaration) indicated that some countries have taken steps to honor their commitments to increasing investments in agriculture and a number of countries have taken a proactive role in attracting private sector agribusiness investments by offering various incentives such as tax holidays within the first few years of an agribusiness establishment

(e.g., Nigeria) and zero duty on agricultural machinery (e.g., Ghana, Nigeria). Other than Republic of South Africa, the other top countries in total ARD and biotech spending are Nigeria (96.4 million USD total ARD spending), Kenya (50.8 m), Ghana (42.9 m), and Uganda (25.2 m). The figures show that even these leading countries spend only modest amounts on biotech (**Figure 2**). Among the other countries spending more than 10 million USD on crop and livestock biotech are Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe, with the rest of the countries spending less than 10 million USD (**Figure 1**). Although many countries signed the Maputo Declaration, committing at least 10% of agricultural

**165**

**Figure 2.**

*Biotechnology in Agricultural Policies of Sub-Saharan Africa*

GDP to R&D, rough estimates suggest that the gross expenditure on R&D for SSA is less than 0.3%. In most of the countries, government contribution to National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) is inadequate, irregular, and often late [6] whereas international donors provide 75% of NARI's budgets. Overall, an estimated 40% of SSA countries spend less than 5 million USD on crop and livestock biotech a year. It appears that the level of spending on agricultural biotechnology largely corresponds to country classifications (**Figure 2**; **Table 2**)—where top 10 spenders are also the countries predominantly classified in the "Strong" and vice versa even though other indices for enabling environment were also used in the classification.

*Total ARD versus biotech spending (in USD) in SSA\*—absolute, and per million inhabitants (Data obtained from ASTI, 2014) \*Comparable biotech spending data for Republic of South Africa was unavailable.*

African countries' entry into biotechnology has been stimulated by many interrelated factors, particularly the cumulative nature of the advancement in biotechnology. In addition, the pace at which SSA biotechnological advancement has benefited from regional and subregional organizations and networks credited with the development of ARD *capacity* in SSA have also contributed in significant ways to many aspects of *enabling environment*. These include the biotechnology support programs and initiatives driven by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) whose centers have, for over three decades, worked collaboratively with many SSA countries on biotechnology research and application in different sectors [7]—with the countries hosting the centers accounting for a relatively larger share of this. In the livestock sector, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) working in partnership with national and other international partners has made strides in developing genetically engineered vaccines while in forestry, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has provided support in capacity development as

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85567*

**3.3 Collaboration and networking**

*Biotechnology in Agricultural Policies of Sub-Saharan Africa DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85567*

**Figure 2.**

*Elements of Bioeconomy*

**Enabling environment**

**Table 2.**

**3.2 Public and private investments**

**Countries**

Senegal

Very strong Republic of South Africa

Strong Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan

Somalia, South Sudan, Swaziland

*Classification of countries on basis of enabling policy environment for biotechnology.*

the first few years of an agribusiness establishment

(e.g., Nigeria) and zero duty on agricultural machinery (e.g., Ghana, Nigeria). Other than Republic of South Africa, the other top countries in total ARD and biotech spending are Nigeria (96.4 million USD total ARD spending), Kenya (50.8 m), Ghana (42.9 m), and Uganda (25.2 m). The figures show that even these leading countries spend only modest amounts on biotech (**Figure 2**). Among the other countries spending more than 10 million USD on crop and livestock biotech are Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe, with the rest of the countries spending less than 10 million USD (**Figure 1**). Although many countries signed the Maputo Declaration, committing at least 10% of agricultural

While the formulation of policy and establishment of biosafety frameworks are principally a function of the political will of the country, and not necessarily resource-endowment, a major aspect of the enabling environment that seems to challenge the majority of SSA countries is "resourcing" of biotechnology programs. This includes investments in capital items (labs, equipment, etc.), human resources, and operations. Although precise value of agricultural biotechnology spending is difficult to obtain, estimates (focusing only on crops and livestock) obtained from IFPRI's Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) database (www. asti.cgiar.org) show that SSA countries invest very limited amounts on agricultural R&D generally, and agricultural biotechnology in particular. Staffing levels (FTEs) from ASTI data indicate low levels of staffing in the majority of countries. Although FTEs (which is only one of the aspects of investment) cannot be used to fairly interpret the level of public or private sector investment (because a section of the experts may have been trained outside their countries, either through incoming scholarships or self-sponsored programs), the low numbers point to a low level of public investment. The total agricultural research for development (ARD) spending takes a similar pattern to policy frameworks, that is, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria are consistently among the top in terms of ARD spending. As expected, private investments in ARD in SSA are mainly directed toward high-value crops and non-traditional products such as cut flowers. A recent development is the proliferation of private agribusiness investment funds targeting African agriculture. In addition, although progress is slow since Maputo Declaration (in 2003), the position as at 2015 (lead up to Malabo Declaration) indicated that some countries have taken steps to honor their commitments to increasing investments in agriculture and a number of countries have taken a proactive role in attracting private sector agribusiness investments by offering various incentives such as tax holidays within

Very weak Angola, Benin, Burundi, Chad, CAR, Congo, Djibouti, DRC, Eritrea, Gambia, Equatorial

Weak Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda,

Medium Botswana, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Niger, Togo, Sierra Leone,

**164**

*Total ARD versus biotech spending (in USD) in SSA\*—absolute, and per million inhabitants (Data obtained from ASTI, 2014) \*Comparable biotech spending data for Republic of South Africa was unavailable.*

GDP to R&D, rough estimates suggest that the gross expenditure on R&D for SSA is less than 0.3%. In most of the countries, government contribution to National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) is inadequate, irregular, and often late [6] whereas international donors provide 75% of NARI's budgets. Overall, an estimated 40% of SSA countries spend less than 5 million USD on crop and livestock biotech a year. It appears that the level of spending on agricultural biotechnology largely corresponds to country classifications (**Figure 2**; **Table 2**)—where top 10 spenders are also the countries predominantly classified in the "Strong" and vice versa even though other indices for enabling environment were also used in the classification.
