The Biotechnology
Revolution and its
Implication for Food
Security in Africa

Victor Konde

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES No. 28

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100
General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2006 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

PUBLISHED BY ATPS COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
Printed by Newtec Concepts
P.O. Box 00800, Westlands
14180 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399
newtec@mitsumi.net

ISBN: 9966-916-95-4

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in
Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the ATPS Special Paper Series are those commissioned as concept
papers, think pieces, leading conference papers and keynote addresses. In keeping with
our knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes, with permission of the author(s) or
journal editors, papers (published or unpublished) produced by distinguished academics/
researchers for a different purpose but judged by ATPS to be of excellent quality. Thesepapers address significant policy questions relevant to the work of ATPS and/or support
the Southern voice or an African perspective. We also consider theoretical papers that
advance our knowledge of science and technology policy issues.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev,
and the Royal Dutch Government.

Acronyms

ACTS
ATPS
AU
CBD
CIMMYT
CNA
COMESAEACECOWASEUFAO
FAPESP
GDP
GMOs
IITA
IT
ITU
KARI
LDC
MT
NEPAD
ONSA
R&D
SADC
SSA
TIGR
TRIPS
UNDP
UNV
USAID
WTO

African Center for Technology Studies
African Technology Policy Studies Network
African Union
Convention on Biological Diversity
International Wheat and Maize Improvement Centre
Cisco Networking Academy
Common Market for East and Southern Africa
East African Community
Economic Community of West African States
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organisation
San Paulo State Research Support Foundation
Gross Domestic Product
Genetically Modified Organisms
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Information Technology
International Telecommunication Union
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Least Developed Countries
Metric Tonnes
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Organization for Nucleotide Sequencing and Analysis
Research and Development
South African Development Communities
Sub-Saharan Africa
The Institute of Genomic Research
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Volunteer Programme
United States Agency for International Development
World Trade Organization

Table of Contents

Abstract
1.

Introduction
1.1 Plant biotechnology
1.2 Animal biotechnology and livestock production
1.3 Industrial biotechnology for agricultural development

1
2
2
3

2.

Food production and security in Africa
2.1 Some of the constraints to agricultural productivity in Africa
2.2 Potential impact of biotechnology in Africa

3
7
9

3.

Governance of biotechnology
3.1 Legal and regulatory regimes
3.2 Agricultural market access and GMOs
3.3 Strategic alliances in biotechnology

11
11
12
13

4

Making biotechnology work for Africa
4.1 Capacity-building in biotechnology; Lessons from other countries
4.2 Biotechnology and diplomacy
4.3 Promoting co-existence of agricultural systems

15
15
18
19

5

Conclusion

21

References

22

Abstract
Agricultural biotechnology presents many opportunities and challenges to Africa. Biotechnology
promises to help meet food security needs, reverse declining per capita food production andimprove the incomes and lives of farmers in Africa. However, the limited international markets for
agricultural products, especially GMOs, the complex regulatory regimes, the weak scientific base,lack of biotechnology development strategies and investment, and poor science and technology
diplomacy skills, among others, are threatening to limit the impact of biotechnology.
This paper addresses a number of these issues from an African perspective and seeks to bring out
alternative models that Africa could adopt to realize the maximum benefits. It draws lessons forother countries, sectors and past agricultural initiatives to illustrate ways of meeting the different
challenges under the current public debate on safety and developing regulatory regimes.

Introduction

Agricultural biotechnology presents many opportunities and challenges for Africa. Biotechnology
promises to help meet food security needs, reverse declining per capita food production andimprove the incomes and livelihoods of farmers in Africa. The international community throughAgenda 21 acknowledged the potential of biotechnology to change lives. Chapter 16.1 states“biotechnology ...promises to make a significant contribution in enabling the development of, forexample, better health care, enhanced food security through sustainable agricultural practices,
improved supplies of potable water, more efficient industrial development processes for transforming
raw materials, support for sustainable methods of afforestation and reforestation, and detoxificationof hazardous wastes. Biotechnology also offers new opportunities for global partnerships”. Since
then, biotechnology has grown into a global industry affecting many aspects of life.
Globally, the biotechnology industry was estimated to have generated US$34.8 billion in revenues
and employed about 190,000 persons in publicly traded firms worldwide in 2001. An estimated
4,200 public and private biotechnology firms were in operation. These are impressive results giventhat in 1992, the biotechnology industry was estimated to have generated only US$8.1 billion [1].
Biological catalysts or enzymes have penetrated almost every industry and have an estimatedglobal market of about US$2 billion. These products are already used in many industries, such as
food processing, leather and textiles, personal care, pharmaceuticals, mining and cleaning. The
demand for other biotechnology-related products, such as feed additives, has continued to growwith vitamins and amino acids accounting for about US$3 billion and digestive enhancers for
US$1.3 billion [2]. Currently, there are about 600 different products and more than 75 types of
enzymes that are used in industries.
It is estimated that the number of biotechnology derived drugs and vaccines for human healthincreased from about 23 in 1990 to over 130 by 2001. An additional 350 biotechnology-derived
drugs and vaccines were in clinical trials targeting over 200 diseases. The number of genomes oforganisms related to human health sequenced completely has continued to grow. In 2002, thesequencing of the genomes of the human, mosquito and that of the malaria-causing organism,

1
2

Ernst & Young (2002) Beyond Borders: Global Biotechnology Report 2002
UNCTAD, 2002 The New Bioeconomy; Industrial and Environmental biotechnology in developing countries, UNCTAD/DITC/
TED/12

1

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

2

Plasmodia falciparum, were completed. These activities are expected to increase the number andpace of drug and vaccine discoveries.
Biotechnology has also been used to reclaim wasteland through the use of micro-organisms andplants that remove and/or degrade toxic compounds. Some firms have incorporated biotechnology
techniques in their production to decrease energy and water consumption, improve productivity
and reduce the number of processing steps [3]. Many of these applications have led to an improved
environment, sustainable use of resources and increased productivity.

1.1

Plant biotechnology

A number of genetically modified plants or organisms (GMOs) have been commercialized. Over the
past 6 years, the acreage of transgenic crops has grown by about 10% annually and the number ofcountries growing transgenic crops has increased from 6 to 16. The acreage grown with transgenic
crops has also increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 58.7 million. This is a substantial
growth in the adoption of the technology by farmer.
Many of the crops grown widely have agronomic traits. Of the total acreage under transgenic crops,
75% was planted with herbicide tolerant crops and 17% with pest protected crops (Bt [bacillus
thurengiensis]-based). In terms of crops, 62% was planted with soybean, 21% with maize and 12%
with cotton in 2002[4]. In Africa, South Africa planted Bt-yellow maize for feed on 175,000 hectares
and Bt-white maize for food on 58,000 hectares.
In terms of environmental and economic impact, the adoption of transgenic plants has increased
profits and reduced pesticide use. It is estimated that Bt-cotton alone in the US has led to 860,000
kg reduction in pesticide use and increased the net income of farmers by at least $100 million while
Bt-maize has led to a 1.6 million Metric tones (MT) in additional production [5]. In Spain, where
European corn borer infestations are high, profitability of Bt-maize is at least 13% higher than thatof non-Bt maize. These are substantial savings that are promoting the uptake of the technology.

1.2

Animal biotechnology and livestock production

Biotechnology research and development activities in animals have focused primarily in four mainareas. These include improvement of animal health, enhancement of animal products, developmentof human health products using animals (as bioreactors) and conservation of animal species.
Biotechnology techniques, such as animal cloning, are enabling researchers to genetically modify
animals to produce drugs and vaccines in their milk, enhance animal product quality (e.g. tenderOECD (2001) The Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability; Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment.
4
C. James (2002) Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002, ISAAA Briefs, 27.
5L.P. Gianessi, C.S. Silvers, S. Sankula and J.E. Carpenter (2002) Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for
Improving Pest Management in US Agriculture: An Analysis Of 40 Case Studies, National Center For Food And Agricultural
Policy3

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

3meat), increase resistance to disease and improve the efficiency of feed conversion [6]. They aim at
improving the management of livestock through prevention, quick diagnosis and effective treatment
of diseases and generating industrially useful products in animals.
Other biotechnology activities address the use of animal products, such as blood, heart, kidneys
and liver, for treating human diseases (xenotransplantation) and the producing molecules fortherapeutic and industrial use in animals (e.g. therapeutic proteins). Biotechnology applications
are promising to help the conservation of endangered species.
Roughly 2,494 different biotechnology derived products were available in 2001 for use against 197
different animal diseases [7]. Currently, the market of animal-based products and services is estimatedat about $2.8 billion. Further, transgenic fish and animals have been developed mainly in developed
countries and some developing countries. Currently, no transgenic animals have been approved forhuman consumption yet.

1.3

Industrial biotechnology for agricultural development

Industrial biotechnology encompasses two broad areas namely, those aimed at replacing fossil
fuel with biomass and those replacing conventional chemical processes with biological systems,
such as whole cells or enzymes. Industrial biotechnology has a direct contribution to agriculture
and to the quality of life of farmers through the provision of alternative farm inputs, energy andprocessing reagents, such as biofertilizers and biopesticides.
Biopesticides and biofertilizers are naturally occurring organisms that have been employed to
improve the management and productivity on the farm, among other applications. However, mostbiopesticides have a narrow target specificity which limits their use. Of the global $8 billion pesticide
market, biopesticides market is roughly $380 million, of which $306 million is from Bt (Bacillus
thuringiensis) alone [8].
The use of biofertilizers is well established and has been employed, mainly in farming, in a numberof countries in Africa including Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe [9]. They are easily produced
locally and the technology is not complex. In some countries, the demand outstripped production of
the pilot plants. India is one country where biofertilizers have been produced by a number ofcommercial firms targeting food and ornament plants.

Fumento, M. (2003). BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is changing our World. San Francisco, California, USA: Encounter
Books.
7
See the Biotechnology Organization for details (www.bio.org)
8
C. Juma, and V. Konde. (2002). The New Bioeconomy: Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology in Developing Countries,
UNCTAD/DITC/TED/12.
9C. Juma and V. Konde (2002) Industrial applications for Biotechnology; Opportunities for developing countries Environment,
44, 23-35.

6

4

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

The use of biopesticides in the control of pests is also well established. Sterile tsetse fly (the vectorof sleeping sickness), for example, was used to control and eliminate the tsetse fly population on the
Island of Zanzibar. Similarly, the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti, was effectively controlledusing a wasp, Apoanagyrus lopezi, from Latin America and this work was awarded the World FoodPrize. However, batch potency variations, short life span and narrow effective target organisms limit
the use of many biopesticides and biofertilizers.

2.

Food Production and Security in Africa

At present, 24% of the global 799 million hungry or malnourished people live in Africa; more than
30% of the African population is malnourished. The World Food Summit [10] noted that “hunger isboth a cause and an effect of extreme poverty [that] prevents the poor from taking advantage ofdevelopment opportunities”. This is of great importance given that more that 52% of the populationin Africa depends on agriculture for their livelihood. Further, agriculture contributes 40-60% of grossdomestic product (GDP). Improving the performance of agriculture in Africa may take many people
out of extreme poverty.
The methods of food production in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are basic and labour-intensive. SSA(excluding South Africa), for example, with 78% of Africa’s arable land consumes only 1.2 million MTof fertilizer (less than Egypt’s 1.3 million MT). Low fertilizer usage may account for the fast depletionof nutrients on farms that may explain reduced land productivity. Similarly, SSA uses 161,276 tractors
in agriculture, about a third of Africa’s share on roughly 80% of Africa’s arable land.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the per capita food production in Africa has been declining since
1961 while it has increased in other developing regions of the world. Cereal production has increased
from about 200kg per capita to 280kg in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean but it has
declined in Africa from about 150kg to 130kg in the last 40 years (see figure 1). During the same
period, meat production per capita has dropped from around 13kg to about 11 kg and fish per capita
production, though initially grew from 4kg to peak at 9kg by 1972, it has since fallen to 7kg by 2001,
according to FAO Statistics (http://apps.fao.org/).

See FAO, Committee on World Food Security; World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals,
CFS:2001/2-Sup.1
10

5

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

6

Figure 1. Per Capita Cereal Production
300

Production per capita (Kg)

280
260
240
220
200

SSA

180

Asia

160

Lat & Ca

140
120
100
1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Year

Source: http://apps.fao.org/ (The FAO STAT)This reduced food production per capita is due to poor yields rather than the size of farms. If the yieldof maize and rice, for example, reached the levels attained in Asia, SSA will triple its current productionlevel on the same land area. Similarly, if it attained the level of yield in Europe, maize production will
go up by at least eight-fold (see figure 2 for comparisons). By increasing yields alone, SSA could
almost attain near food security and possible surplus for sale.
Farm animals (Livestock) are thought to account for 20-60% of household income and up to 80%
of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) [11]. Increasing livestock production especially in theface of increasing demand for animal products could help reduce poverty. The productivity of sometraditional livestock breeds in SSA is lower than that of exotic breeds. The best African cattle breeds,
for example, mature in 4-5 years but weigh no more than 300kg while exotic cattle breeds attain 400
kg in one year. African cattle breeds produce 300 litres of milk per lactation while exotic breeds
produce more than 5000 litres.

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

7

The competitiveness of the African subsistence farmer is eroded by reduced yields even if thelabour was priceless. On the other hand, the demand for meat, milk and eggs are on the rise in SSA
and is expected to exceed production. Developing countries are net importers of meat and milk
mainly due to low productivity in the face of increasing population [12]. Therefore, finding ways of
improving the management of livestock may be useful given that the African market demand foranimal products is expected to increase.

2.1

Some of the constraints to agricultural productivity in Africa

Many constraints have kept agricultural productivity very low in Africa besides socio-economic
factors, such as, land ownership, civil strife, poor infrastructure and underdeveloped market regimes.
There are many insects, fungal, viral and bacterial pests that inflict huge losses each year, some ofwhich are found only in Africa, reducing total production by up to 30% [13]. The cassava mosaic virus,
for example, is thought to have cost Uganda $60 million annually and cassava insect pests are
estimated to cause 20-80% production losses annually in SSA.
Weeding is a highly demanding, backbreaking and expensive activity of African manual-labour
intensive agricultural system. Fields have to be cleared of weeds, sometimes, two to three times in
a 4-month planting season. Weeds compete with crops for limited nutrients, moisture, space andsunlight, and strangle plant development. The parasitic weed, Striga, attacks fields of maize, millet,
sorghum and beans, among others, and is found on 40% of Africa’s arable land. The weed isestimated to cause annual losses of about $7-10 million [14].
In the past decade, droughts have increased in frequency and intensity in Africa. The 2001/2002
drought reduced cereal production in Southern Africa by up to 30% in Malawi, Zambia andZimbabwe. Of the cereal crops, maize was the worst affected followed by millet and sorghum in thethree countries. In addition to food crops and livestock, drought also affects underground water,
reduces vegetation cover, encourages soil erosion and disturbs living organisms supported by theland. Thus they reduce the soil quality and the land’s ability to support food production in future.
Floods may have a similar effect.
Diseases, such as trypanosomiasis, east coast fever, foot and mouth, swine fever, heartwater andnew castle, among others, and poor feeds or pastures, have affected livestock production.

11

ILRI (2002) Research at the Crossroads of Livestock and Poverty, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya
Y. Menesha, S. Ehui, M. Jabbar and B. Shapiro (1998) Livestock Production, Consumption and Trade: Key Indicators,
Livestock Policy Analysis Brief 11, ILRI.
13
J. Lenne (2000) Pests and Poverty: The Continuing Need for Crop Protection Research, Outlook On Agriculture 29, 235-350.
14
Z.R. Khan, W.A. Overholt and A. Hassana Utilization of Agricultural Biodiversity For Management Of Cereal Stemborers And
Striga Weed In Maize-Based Cropping Systems in Africa- Case Study (ICIPE) see http://www.biodiv.org/doc/casestudies/cs-agr-cereal-stemborers.pdf
12

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

8

Trypanosomiasis alone is estimated to cost the continent about $4.5 billion a year in meat, milk andtraction power. Productivity is also limited by poor quality of feed and lack of good veterinary services.
If these constraints could be overcome, productivity on the available land area would increase andso the availability of food. These constraints require concerted efforts from many fronts but bearing
in mind the current economic and social needs of different societies and nations. Technology is
one of those areas that need to be employed meaningfully not to disrupt further production system
but rather empower current practices to achieve higher levels of efficiency.

Figure 2. Comparison of some cereal yields
10.0

Maize
Rice

9.0

Yields (MT/Ha)

8.0

Wheat

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
SSA

Asia

LAC

RegionSource: FAOSTAT (2002)

EuropeUSA

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

2.2

9

Potential impact of biotechnology in Africa

The potential benefit of biotechnology to farmers and corporations is now well acknowledged. The
simple fact that the adoption rate of many biotechnology crops has continued to grow very fast is
testimony to the benefits farmers are deriving from GM-crops. The fact that farmers in Brazil havebeen reported to plant GM-soybean seeds smuggled across the border with Argentina also indicatesthat farmers are realizing the benefits of genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) It makes little
business sense for farmers to grow seeds that increase production costs and diminish profit margins.
Africa’s past experience in adoption of improved crops varieties is impressive. It was estimated by1990 that about 42% of the maize acreage was planted with improved varieties of maize (17% open
pollinated and 25% hybrids) in SSA, which is comparable to that achieved in Asia and Latin America[15]. It is also estimated that about 1% of the 3% annual growth in productivity experienced in SSA
was due to adoption of improved varieties [16]. Most of the improved varieties were released bynational breeders but were primarily based on varieties developed by the International Wheat andMaize improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).
Therefore, it is reasonable to be optimistic that farmers could benefit from biotechnology especially
if there is government support agriculture, markets for the products and goodwill of corporations torelax intellectual property rights for humanitarian products. In addition, the benefits will be higher if
the traits target constraints faced by farmers in Africa. The ability of local breeders to adapt andgenerate GM-plants that suit growing local conditions and animal management practices may
determine the impact of biotechnology.
The potential of biotechnology applications in Africa has to be tempered with realism. The support
policies and infrastructure that exist in many of the markets where GM-crops have been used do notexist in most of SSA. Some argue that even if initial gains in yield and productivity are made, thepoorly developed domestic market systems and the lack of external linkages could easily lead tocatastrophic price falls that will make commercial grain production unproductive.
The production of maize in Zambia and Ethiopia by commercial farmers, for example, declined as
prices fell during the government driven “green revolution” programs that backed hybrid varieties
and inorganic fertilizers. In Zambia, maize yields for small-scale farmers are lower than that forcommercial farmers. In 2002, the maize yields for commercial farmers was estimated to be about 3
MT per hectare compared to 1.1 MT per hectare for small-scale farmers [17]. Similarly, urban areas
had achieved higher yields than rural areas. Different land management and location may not

A. Byerlee and D. Heisey (1996) Past and Potential Impacts of Maize Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Assessment.
Food Policy, 21: 2555-77
16
M. Maredia, D. Byerlee and P. Pee (1999) Impacts of Food Crop Improvement Research in Africa, SPAAR occasional paper
series, No. 1.
17
http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2003/fews-zam-27jun.pdf
15

10

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

necessarily be a major factor, but the presence of functional marketing and distribution channels for
inputs may account for some of this difference.
This is why the expectations of biotechnology to improve the incomes and availability of food in ruralcommunities have to be modest, cautious and realistic. Poor farmers would benefit most if the seeds
and the supportive inputs could reach them. Herbicide tolerant crops, for example, are only useful if
the herbicides for controlling weeds are available and affordable. It is unclear whether farmers who
cannot afford fertilizers can afford herbicides. However, if the plant is empowered to fight weeds andpests, then the benefits will only be limited by access to GM-seeds and functional markets that will
enable farmers realize their investment.
Other biotechnology techniques utilised in processing of feed, food and agricultural remains may be
important in ensuring food security and improving the lives of rural communities. It is now possible,
for example, to produce bioethanol from agricultural remains cost-effectively due to advances inenzyme engineering. Production of biofuel from sugarcane and other crops could provide a market
for agricultural produce while reducing the import bill for fossil fuel and generation of green housegasses. Similarly, biogas could be generated from livestock refuse to power rural homes and thewaste could be used as manure. Enzymes and microbes could also be use to process leather andmilk products that could help diversify rural economies and provide employment for the youth.
Therefore, the impact of biotechnology should be viewed in the broadest terms possible if Africa has
to become food-secure.

3.

Governance of Biotechnology

3.1

Legal and regulatory regimes

International and national policies influencing biotechnology are still in the early stages ofdevelopment. This is partly because biotechnology is developing as an outgrowth of other industries(e.g. agriculture and pharmaceuticals) that are already regulated. However, the unique nature ofsome biotechnology applications and processes has led to the development of new regulatory
regimes that either focus on the product or the process and the product. These fall broadly into
intellectual property rights and biosafety regulations.
Of interest is the extension of intellectual property rights to cover living forms. This is particularly
significant, given the fact that historically, living organisms fell outside the scope of protection ofmost intellectual property systems. Industry has argued that the absence of intellectual property
protection for living organisms undermined innovations and funding prospects for biotechnology
research [18].
The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World
Trade Organization has been the main instrument for the protection of biotechnology innovations.
The TRIPS agreement recognizes that “patents shall be available for any inventions, whether
products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive
step and are capable of industrial application.” To encourage innovation around patents the TRIPS
agreement encourages full disclosure. It requires an “applicant for a patent to disclose the invention
in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by persons skilled in
the art [using] the applicant’s [recommended] best method”.
On the broader aspects, critics have argued that such property rights are inconsistent with morality
and are too wide [19]. The extension of intellectual property rights to cover living organisms is seen
in some sections of society as being against the public interest [20]. In response to these claims,

18

Watal, J. (2000) “Intellectual Property And Biotechnology: Trade Interests of Developing Countries”, International Journal of
Biotechnology, Vol. 2, No. 1/2/3, pp. 44-55
19
Drahos, P. (1999) “Biotechnology Patents, Markets And Morality”, European Intellectual Property Review, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp.
441-449
20
Barton, J. (2000) “Rational Limits On Genomic Patents”, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, No. 8, p. 805.

11

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

12patent offices around the world continue to review the scope of patentability to seek a balance
between the demand for protecting inventions and the pressure to safeguard public interest.
Another major area of policy development is the emergence of new rules that seek to govern
biological inventions on the basis of their presumed risks to human health and the environment [21].
These policy measures come under the general umbrella of “biosafety” and are the subject matterof the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Although the
Cartagena Protocol has not yet come into force, it provides a set of policy guidelines that will have
implications for the development of biotechnology [22]. One of the most significant features of the
protocol is the promulgation of the precautionary principle as a tool for risk management in the faceof uncertainty [23]. This is a contested field, because of the potential for the principle to be used as
an instrument for market protection [24]. The critical policy issue here is how to establish aninternational standard for balancing between safety and international trade.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), for example, has devoted the last five years todeveloping rules for the safe use and handling of biotechnology. However, over that period, little wasdone to explore areas that could benefit from the new safety rules. The convention’s provisions thatcall upon countries to cooperate in the field of biotechnology still remain dormant. The Convention
is seen by some as a tool for safe use rather than for building sufficient capacity for countries todecide the levels of safety they need.

3.2

Agricultural market access and GMOs

African agricultural products already face many hurdles on the international market. These include
high tariffs and standards (sanitary and phytosanitary requirements). Agricultural exports to developed
countries suffer most from tariff peaks and tariff escalation [25]. The EU and Japan have the highest
number of tariff peak products for agricultural imports. Exports of finished textile and clothing products
to Canada attract higher tariff levels than raw materials for the same industry. Other products that
suffer from incremental applied tariffs by stage of production include leather, rubber, metal, woodand paper. These products represent about 15% of the exports of least developed countries to thedeveloped countries. Taken together, tariff peaks and tariff escalations hinder the efforts bydeveloping countries to export finished products, thereby reducing diversification and skills
accumulation.
Wolfenbarger, L. and P. Phifer. (2000). “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants”, Science, Vol. 290, pp. 2088-2093.
22
Gupta, A. (2000) “Governing trade in genetically modified organisms: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety”, Environment, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 22-33
23
Soule, E. (2000) “Assessing the precautionary principle”, Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 309-328.
24
Hagen, P.E. and Weiner, J.B. (2000) “The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: New Rules for International Trade in Living
Modified Organisms”, Georgetown International Law Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 696-717
25
Peak tariffs are tariffs of 15% or higher, or three times the tariff in developed countries. Tariff escalation refers to increasing tariffwith level of downstream processing.

21

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

13

This is compounded further by high levels of subsidies to agriculture and export products in developed
countries [26]. Subsidies undermine the comparative advantage of poor farmers by supplying cheap
products on the local and international market. In the absence of ‘fair’ market regulations, it is not
surprising that Africa does not invest heavily in export industries linked to the processing of raw
materials.
GMOs may help Africa achieve higher productivity and improve agricultural competitiveness. However,Africa faces many challenges in adopting GMOs. Countries that will produce GMOs will be seeking
to find markets for their products while those that will not produce GMOs would like to keep theircurrent market share for conventional crops and animals. Countries that import food may wish toretain the right to accept or reject GMOs based on the flexibility of biosafety regulations. These
conflicting positions may affect trade and the flow of aid. Complex transportation arrangements, forexample, may be required to move GMOs across other countries that may wish to be GMO-free.
Similarly, the complex labelling and traceability regimes for GMOs may affect conventional varieties.

3.3

Strategic alliances in biotechnology

Strategic alliances are a product of complex linkages among a wide range of enterprises designed
to reduce the risks associated with the development of new products and facilitate informationexchange. Strategic alliances between industries and research institutions can help overcome
funding difficulties through licensing and other arrangements. Such arrangements are particularly
important in areas with limited access to other forms of financing, such as venture capital. Even
where venture capital is available, these arrangements still have an important risk-reducing function.
Partnership arrangements could also play a key role in the development of technological capabilities
in the firms and institutions in developing countries. Such capacity would be related to specificproducts and services. Partnering would also be useful in promoting the adoption of goodmanagement and industrial production standards in developing countries.
Different shades of public-private partnerships have become common in biotechnology. Universityindustry-government relations, for example, [27] have existed for a long time but their nature haschanged. There is a movement from ‘linkage of independent institutions’ to ‘integration of various
players’ (creating what is termed ‘porous society’). The location of research and development(R&D) activities of private firms in universities, the founding/ownership of private companies by
public institutions and the training of students in industries may point towards the establishment ofa more porous knowledge society.

26

The OECD support to agriculture is estimated at $1 billion per day ( see Inge Kaul, Katell Le Goulven and Mirjam Schnupf,
Financing Global Public Goods: Policy Experience and Future Challenges [via www.undp.org] and van Beers, Cees, andAndré de Moor (2001) Public Subsidies and Policy Failures: How Subsidies Distort the Natural Environment, Equity andTrade, and How to Reform Them. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
27
Leydesdorff, L and Etzkowitz, H (2001). Transformation of University-Industry-Government Relations. Electronic J. Sociology,
Vol 5.

14

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

However, these alliances may lock out public research institutions that may not be part to thesearrangements. The complex agreements and web of networking may curtail transfer of technology
to public research institutions that have been the mainstay of African agricultural development. The
ability of African countries and institutions to actively seek alliances that compensate their weaknesses,
exploit the strengths of others, uses global resources effectively and generate solutions to empower
their economies is limited.
One example of partnership in information technology (IT) is the agreement between Cisco Systems
and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to provide Internet education in the Asia
Pacific region in 1999 [28]. By 2002, the non-profit organization had trained 150 students and had
another 500 on training in 18 Cisco Networking Academies (CAN). In 2000, the programme expanded
the CNA to include the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The programme benefits from the United
Nations Volunteer (UNV) Programme and the support of United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) through the Leyland Initiative. The joining of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 2002 to the Cisco Programme has provided further support aswell as recognition of its achievement.
This programme provides a basis for partnerships that involve local partners, private firms, donor
agencies and international organizations to deliver quality service. There is no reason why a similarbiotechnology strategy in Africa should not take this shape and achieve similar impact. Organisations
such as NEPAD, ACTS, ATPS and regional bodies, such as the East African Community (EAC), theEconomic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Southern African Development Community(SADC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and African Union (AU) could
be used in such an initiative to bring agricultural business, research institutions and policy makers tofocus on specific problems.

28

For further Information see www.cisco.com, http://www.itu.int/wsis/ and www.undp.org

4.

Making Biotechnology Work for Africa

4.1

Capacity-building in biotechnology; Lessons from other countries

Biotechnology is a knowledge intensive industry that has developed around areas with a criticalmass of skilled individuals. In the US, the early biotechnology clusters developed in locations withgood research universities [29]. Similarly, India’s biotechnology industry is also associated withestablished research institutions and universities. However, different strategies have been employed
to fit unique technical, political and economic circumstances. This section highlights three different
approaches.

4.1.1

Biotechnology development in the Republic of Korea

The biotechnology development strategy of the Republic of Korea, as contained in the Korea
Biotech 2000 plan, is composed of three main phases. The first phase (1994-1997) aimed atacquiring and adapting bioprocessing and improving performance of research and development
investments. The second phase (1998-2002) focused on consolidation of the scientific foundation
for development of novel products [30]. The last phase (2003-2007) will target biotechnology market
expansion locally and internationally.
To meet these goals, the Republic of Korea has since 1982 encouraged universities to open
biotechnology-related departments and research institutions. The country has also establishedstrategic partnerships with centres in China and the United Kingdom for research. The Governmentis estimated to have invested US$500 million while the private sector invested an additional US$ 1
billion in the first four years. It also set aside funds to help establish 600 biotechnology-related
ventures [31] by the end of 2003 and train an additional 13,000 nanotechnologists by 2010.
The Republic of Korea has developed a complete biotechnology industry strategy addressing all
the core aspects, such as human resource, research facilities, financial needs, marketing andmanagement capabilities. It involves the public and private sector partnerships and helps its local
institutions access international centres to stay abreast with new developments. The biotechnology
sector has imported most of the enabling technologies such as fermentation, vaccine and drug
production know-how.
Chapter 4. Biotechnology in the US (see http://www.dti.gov.uk/biotechclusters/chapt04.pdf)
The Korean Herald (12th February, 2001) Ministry announces a major initiative to boost biosciences and nanotechnology.
31
San Diego Business Journal (4th March, 2002) South Korea Eye Local Bio-investment.

29

30

15

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

16

4.1.2

Cuban biotechnology strategy

Since 1980, biotechnology has expanded from a single laboratory to over 190 research units [32].
Cuba developed a manpower base in medical sciences through training programmes at home
and in countries such as France, Mexico, Japan, Switzerland and the United States. This manpower
formed the backbone for the biotechnology industry. Most of the equipment was also imported fromabroad.
Cuba’s research and development expenditure as percentage of GDP was estimated at 1.2 percent and the country is thought to have invested about $1 billion over the last 20 years. In return,Cuba’s biotechnology centres have produced at least 160 medical products, 50 enzymes andprobes for diseases among others [33]. By 1998, the biotechnology sector was making up to $290
million in sales and placed the sector as the fourth largest foreign exchange earner after tourism,tobacco and nickel exports.
The Cuban biotechnology industry is a closed network or cluster of supportive institutions. It comprises
R&D, exports and imports, manufacturing, information and communication, maintenance, advisoryand policy, and regulatory institutions. This structure promotes recombination of knowledge and iscost-effective. Although the Cuban biotechnology is government-managed and driven, it has all thecharacteristics of a mature privately managed business unit.

4.1.3

Development of the Organization for Nucleotide Sequencing and Analysis, Brazil
Genome sequencing is a highly specialized biotechnology field that has been largely executed bylarge organizations, such as The Institute of Genomic Research (TIGR) and the Sanger Center
among others. However, the Organization for Nucleotide Sequencing and Analysis (ONSA) in Brazil
captured the headlines when they announced that they had successfully completed the sequencing
of Xylella fastidiosa, an organism that infects oranges and causes Citrus Variegated Chlorosis, twomonths ahead of time and $2 million within budget. The organism causes losses of approximately
US$100 million to the citrus industry in Sao Paulo.

With $11.6 million dollars from the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP),ONSA established two central sequencing laboratories, a bioinformatics unit and equiped all the 34
selected sequencing laboratories [34]. The central sequencing laboratories prepared the samples
and served as training centres. FAPESP decided to fund the genome project to expose as manylaboratories to the modern tools of biotechnology. Plans to create a single centre were rejected.

32

C&EN Washington (1999, 11th January) Cuba at a Crossroads, News Focus CENEAR 77,2, 8-13.
Elderhorst, M. (1994) Will Cuba’s Biotechnology Capacity Survive the Socio-Economic Crisis? Biotechnology and Development
Monitor, 20, 11-13/22.
34
See Http://aeg.lbi.ic.unicamp.br/xf/project/organisation.html.

33

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

17

They settled for a virtual institute that networked about 34 laboratories located in geographicallydistant places and involving about 200 participants managed via the Internet.
By 2001, ONSA and its partners have contributed three genomes to the public genetic databases;
Xanthomonas axonpodis, Xanthomonas campestris and Xylella fastidiosa, founded three companies
and trained 200 young geneticists (by design the project encouraged young participants). In addition,
ONSA became one of the main contributors to the human genome project by submitting about
10,000 ESTs from its human cancer genome project.
Virtual research centres are faster to build, easy to abandon, rearrange and recreate to meet new
challenges. They expose a large number of centres and professionals to new techniques andquickly concentrate limited expertise scattered around the region. They render geographical isolation
irrelevant, foster collaboration and stimulate quality research activities. The individual participating
laboratories expand their research activities based on the lessons learnt and use the tools acquired
to create and attract new partnerships and sources of funding.

4.1.4

Lessons for Africa on capacity-building in biotechnology

These cases reveal that Africa can still catch up with the rest if it develops a manpower base,involves the private sector, uses its universities and research centres, provide financial and politicalsupport. Africa could also use the goodwill of donor agencies, bilateral and multilateral technicalagreements to acquire the needed technologies.
It is important to note that a number of programmes and research institutions have been developedin Africa to build capacity building in biotechnology [35]. However, there are reasons why many ofthese have not achieved the desired impact. First, biotechnology is a collection of technologies,
such as, bioprocessing, metabolic pathway engineering, breeding processes, chemical engineeringand molecular designing, among others, each of which is also a collection of many othertechnologies. Therefore, training a few individuals may not be useful. Cuba, for example, had
12,000 scientists employed in biotechnology related research in 2000; training has to be long term,planned and realistic.
In addition most biotechnology research in Africa is in isolated research centres, sometimes, faraway from universities and related institutions. Moreover, most African research centres have
manpower establishments that do not promote mobility. These structural issues limit the continuous
flow of knowledge and ideas needed in a field that is rapidly evolving. Some countries, such as,
South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe have research institutions that collaborate with universities on
graduate student research and training. This is one of the strengths of the US research community.

35

John Mugabe (2000) Biotechnology In Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition; Strategic Capacity
Building Considerations, UNCTAD, Geneva, Switzerland (available at http://www.acts.or.ke/)

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

18

In addition, the convergence of biotechnology with information technology, nanotechnology andmaterials technology complicates capacity-building at all levels. Africa does not have sufficient
capacity in the technologies recombining and, consequently, is unlikely to participate in the emerging
fields and most of the institutions lack the flexibility to re-orient their activities during changing times.
Africa may need to rethink again on development of standalone laboratory or institutions if it has tobenefit from multidisciplinary technologies.

4.2

Biotechnology and diplomacy

The skills of nations to analyze, discuss, negotiate and lobby technically complex issues are neededin biotechnology. In biotechnology, issues surrounding trade in GMOs, commercial release of GMOs,
intellectual property rights protection of plant and animal varieties, and those related to protection of
traditional knowledge are of considerable interest. Weaker countries, negotiating and lobbying froma disadvantaged position face many challenges in ensuring their interests are seriously taken into
consideration.
The case of HIV/AIDS drugs present lessons that countries can use to negotiate and lobbying
international corporations for technology transfer at affordable rates, be it embroiled in products orprocesses. The virus resistant potato developed by a collaborative project involving the Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) (Kenya)-Monsanto (USA) is another example of where
technology transfer occurred on favourable user-friendly terms. Similarly, the case of vitamin A
enriched “Golden Rice” was developed by public research and funding but used patents that wereprivate.
Public research institutions have negotiated with private firms or individuals that owned the patents
to be used in a way that does not disadvantage the firms or individuals, and the potential users. Oneof the agreements reached is that farmers in poor countries that earn less than $10,000 annually will
not pay the technology premium over the seed for growing Golden Rice and retain the right to savethe seeds.
It is, therefore, possible to negotiate and lobby private firms and research institutions for intellectual
property rights. Navigating around rigid regulatory regimes is difficult. Taking a product throughapprovals could range from thousands of dollars to several millions mainly due to numerous demands.
Many publicly funded research products will never manage to raise such astronomical amounts justto go through approval. Africa may have to find other ways of ensuring regulations do not strangle
innovations. This could include commercialization based on regional or internationally recognizedapproval. Above all, the market sizes of many African countries are so small that returns on such
scale of investment may not be recovered without passing the cost to poor farmers.
Africa also needs to develop skills to negotiate for market access without giving up on innovation.
The TRIPS agreement is one arrangement where developing countries are thought to have tradedtechnology for market access. Yet, developing countries needed technology to build a productive
base to develop the products to sell on the international market. Instead, developing countries haveTHE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

19

spent more money building patent offices instead of capacity to develop innovations. While developed
countries have benefited from TRIPS, termed “global tax cut”, developing countries have spentmoney establishing regulatory regimes to protect innovations owned by others.
Africa has to negotiate for market access for GM-products and for non-GM products. They should
exploit the goodwill of proponents of biotechnology to build capacity and access innovations. Similarly,
they should exploit the will of opponents to acquire technologies for food safety assessment, which
is important in expanding markets for food exports, and monitoring health and environmental impactsof GMOs. However, balancing their needs and ones interests may be vital. India, China and South
Africa are using this approach and there is no reason why most of Africa should not survive theturbulent diplomatic storm over biotechnology.
Africa’s success in biotechnology will require significant donor support in terms of technicalassistance, training and funding of research. At least all donors agree that building biotechnology
capacity is necessary for innovation and biosafety. The technical levels of competence needed tosafely manage food and drug regulatory agents and that to conducts research and develop activities
is not very different. The support from donors is important, as donor funding for agricultural researchin Africa could be as high as 80% in some countries [36].

4.3

Promoting co-existence of agricultural systems

Africa has three main options for commercializing GMOs:
1. Africa could decide not to adopt GMOs on the basis that their traditional markets for agricultural
products, Europe, will not allow the use or consumption of GMOs in a long time to come.
2. Africa could decide to adopt wide spread use of biotechnology on the basis that markets for
GMOs will open up in Europe that already grow some GMOs and have invested heavily inresearch.
3. Africa could decide to partly adopt GMOs in those areas that do not threaten its traditional
market to benefit from the choice of consumers to buy GM or non-GM foods.
Africa may need to promote co-existence of different agricultural practices, such as conventional,organic and GM-based farming. Such a policy could help both the producers and consumers tochoose what they wish to grow and buy. By so doing, African countries would still retain their current
market share for non-GMO while benefiting from GM technology in emerging markets.
African countries could also use GMOs for different reasons. They could encourage GMOs foranimal feed, textiles, rubber, oil and timber among others, that could help diversify incomes andenhance earnings. India and China, for example, have selectively commercialized Bt-cotton but
not the other major crops. Indeed, each crop should be evaluated on its merits rather than by thetechnology used to generate it.
36

M. Maredia, D. Byerlee and P. Pee (1999) Impact of Food Crop Improvement Research in Africa, SPAARS Ocassional paper
series, No. 1.

20

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

Africa needs to bear in mind that the battle over GMOs is being won and lost at the market place, orappropriately, public sentiments. GM sweet corn, potato and sugar beet, for example, are amongcrops approved for commercial release in the US but have not been grown for major use.
Organizations, such as McDonalds, have declared themselves GM-free, practically locking out thecrops. Similarly, the current debate in Europe is keeping GMOs and their use out of the shelves.
Maybe a closer look at Spain, the only EU country with significant GM-maize acreage could provide
a valuable lesson.

5.

Conclusion

All technologies have benefits and opportunities that have to be harnessed, and risks that have to be
managed. GMOs present farmers with the ability to overcome weeds, pests and diseases thatcause huge losses annually in ways never imagined before. However, few African countries haveenthusiastically embraced the technology to build industries, health services and agricultural sector.
There are even fewer strategies to ensure that these technologies become global participants.
Budgets to universities and research institutions have continued to decline in most of Africa anddonor support for basic and applied research have declined as the focus has shifted to experimental
development. This has affected manpower training, research activities and conditions of service [37]that have been the mainstay of biotechnology industry development.
However, it is clear that biotechnology holds many opportunities for developing countries and Africa
in particular. However, Africa will need to develop it manpower base, stimulate industrial participationand donors to develop a biotechnology sector. It should provide incentives that encourage formationof strategic alliances and participation of various players.
The wider adoption of biotechnology will be influenced by the global governance regimes that are
emerging. Flexible enforcement of intellectual property rights and responsive regulatory policies
may be needed to help Africa benefit from biotechnology. Similarly, partnerships and alliances will
have to be formed between those with resources and those with the technologies if the poor have tobenefit.
It is sad that at a time when some countries are suffering from “global obesity”, Africa is suffering frommalnutrition. Those in developed countries and large cities in poor countries may afford to besentimental about food but the majority of Africans just need food.

37

L. Zuker, M. R. Darby, M. B. Brewer (1999) Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises, NBER
Papers.

21

References
A. Byerlee and D. Heisey (1996) Past and Potential Impacts of Maize Research in Sub-SaharanAfrica: A Critical Assessment. Food Policy, 21: 2555-77
Barton, J. (2000) “Rational Limits On Genomic Patents”, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, No. 8, p. 805.
Biotechnology Organization (www.bio.org)
C. James (2002) Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002, ISAAA Briefs, 27.
C. Juma, and V. Konde. (2002). The New Bioeconomy: Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology
in Developing Countries, UNCTAD/DITC/TED/12.
C. Juma and V. Konde (2002) Industrial applications for Biotechnology; Opportunities for developing
countries Environment, 44, 23-35.
C&EN Washington (1999, 11th January) Cuba at a Crossroads, News Focus CENEAR 77,2, 8-13.
Drahos, P. (1999) “Biotechnology Patents, Markets And Morality”, European Intellectual Property
Review, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 441-449
Elderhorst, M. (1994) Will Cuba’s Biotechnology Capacity Survive the Socio-Economic Crisis?
Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 20, 11-13/22.
Ernst & Young (2002) Beyond Borders: Global Biotechnology Report 2002
FAO, Committee on World Food Security; World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals,
CFS:2001/2-Sup.1
Fumento, M. (2003). BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is changing our World. San Francisco,California, USA: Encounter Books.
Gupta, A. (2000) “Governing trade in genetically modified organisms: the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety”, Environment, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 22-33
Hagen, P.E. and Weiner, J.B. (2000) “The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: New Rules for International
Trade in Living Modified Organisms”, Georgetown International Law Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 696717
http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2003/fews-zam-27jun.pdf
http://www.itu.int/wsis/ and www.undp.org
http://www.dti.gov.uk/biotechclusters/chapt04.pdf)
http://aeg.lbi.ic.unicamp.br/xf/project/organisation.html.
ILRI (2002) Research at the Crossroads of Livestock and Poverty, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya

22

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

23

Inge Kaul, Katell Le Goulven and Mirjam Schnupf, Financing Global Public Goods: Policy Experienceand Future Challenges
John Mugabe (2000) Biotechnology In Developing Countries and Countries with Economies inTransition; Strategic Capacity Building Considerations, UNCTAD, Geneva, Switzerland (available
at http://www.acts.or.ke/)
The Korean Herald (12th February, 2001) Ministry announces a major initiative to boost biosciences
and nanotechnology.
Leydesdorff, L and Etzkowitz, H (2001). Transformation of University-Industry-Government Relations.
Electronic J. Sociology, Vol 5.
J. Lenne (2000) Pests and Poverty: The Continuing Need for Crop Protection Research, Outlook On
Agriculture 29, 235-350.
L.P. Gianessi, C.S. Silvers, S. Sankula and J.E. Carpenter (2002) Plant Biotechnology: Current andPotential Impact for Improving Pest Management in US Agriculture: An Analysis Of 40 Case
Studies, National Center For Food And Agricultural Policy
L. Zuker, M. R. Darby, M. B. Brewer (1999) Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology
Enterprises, NBER Papers.
M. Maredia, D. Byerlee and P. Pee (1999) Impacts of Food Crop Improvement Research in Africa,
SPAAR occasional paper series, No. 1.
Peak tariffs are tariffs of 15% or higher, or three times the tariff in developed countries. Tariff escalationrefers to increasing tariff with level of downstream processing.
UNCTAD, 2002 The New Bioeconomy; Industrial and Environmental biotechnology in developing
countries, UNCTAD/DITC/TED/12
OECD (2001) The Application of Biotechnology to Industrial Sustainability; Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
San Diego Business Journal (4th March, 2002) South Korea Eye Local Bio-investment.
Soule, E. (2000) “Assessing the precautionary principle”, Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.
309-328.
van Beers, Cees, and André de Moor (2001) Public Subsidies and Policy Failures: How Subsidies
Distort the Natural Environment, Equity and Trade, and How to Reform Them. Cheltenham, U.K.:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Watal, J. (2000) “Intellectual Property And Biotechnology: Trade Interests of Developing Countries”,
International Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 2, No. 1/2/3, pp. 44-55
Wolfenbarger, L. and P. Phifer. (2000). “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered
Plants”, Science, Vol. 290, pp. 2088-2093.
Y. Menesha, S. Ehui, M. Jabbar and B. Shapiro (1998) Livestock Production, Consumption andTrade: Key Indicators, Livestock Policy Analysis Brief 11, ILRI.

24

ATPS SPECIAL PAPER SERIES NO. 28

Z.R. Khan, W.A. Overholt and A. Hassana Utilization of Agricultural Biodiversity For Management Of
Cereal Stemborers And Striga Weed In Maize-Based Cropping Systems in Africa- Case Study(ICIPE) see http://www.biodiv.org/doc/case-studies/cs-agr-cereal-stemborers.pdf

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR FOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA

Victor Konde is with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

25

Other Publications in the ATPS Special Paper SeriesSpecial Paper Series 1
Globalization and Technology: Africa’s Participation and Perspectives: Concept Paper and Research Agenda by
Melvin Ayogu &Osita Ogbu (2002)
Special Paper Series 2
Globalization, Markets for Technology and the Relevance of Innovation Policies in Developing Economies by Sunil
Mani (2002)
Special Paper Series 3
Biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a Policy Research Agenda by John Mugabe (2000)
Special Paper Series 4
The Impact of Globalization in sub-Saharan Africa Countries by Mwindaace N. Siamwiza (2002)
Special Paper Series 5
A Blueprint for Developing National ICT Policy in Africa by Clement Dzidonu2002
Special Paper Series 6
Impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on Technology Transfer in Africa by Moses M. Ikiara (2002)
Special Paper Series 7
Pursuing Technology Policy Research in sub-Saharan Africa: Reflections on the Dimensions, Applications and
Implications of a Methodological Framework by M.H. Khalil-Timamy (2002)
Special Paper Series 8
African Response to the Information Communication Technology Revolution by G. Olalere Ajayi (2002)
Special Paper Series 9
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs): Poverty Alleviation and Universal Access Policies by Andrew
Dymond & Sonja Oestmann (2002)
Special Paper Series 10
ICT Human Resource Development in Africa: Challenges, Strategies and Options by T.M. Waema (2002).
Special Paper Series 11
Applications of ICTs in Africa: Development of Knowledge Workers in Centres of Learning by John Muraguri
Waibochi (2002).
Special Paper Series 12
State of Science and Technology Capacity in sub-Saharan Africa by Khalil-Timamy (2002).
Special Paper Series 13
Strengthening National Information and Cmmunication Technology Policy in Africa: Governance, Equity andInstitutional Issues by Melvin Ayogu
Special Paper Series 14
A Science Agenda from An Afrian Perspective by Turner T. Isoun
Special Paper Series 15
International Trends in Modern Bio-technology: Entry by and Implications for African Countries by John Mugabe
Special Paper Series 16
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), technology Transfer and Poverty Alleviation: Africa’s Hopes and Dilemma by
Moses Ikiara
Special Paper Series 17
Global Governance of Technology and Africa’s Global Inclusion by Banji Oyeyinka

Special Paper Series 18
Science and Technology and Poverty Reduction Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 19
An Assessment of Science and Technology Capacity Building in sub-Saharan Africa byO. Akin Adubifa
Special Paper Series 20
Network as Determinants of Manufacturing SME Cluster Growth in Nigeria Networking Technical Change andIndustrialization: The Case of Small and Medium Firm in Nigeria by Banji Oyelaran-Oyeyinka
Special Paper Series 21
Technology Transfer in a Globalizing World: Many Promises, Lack of Responsibility, and Challenges for Africa by
M.H. Khalil Timamy
Special Paper Series 22
Integrated Value Mapping for Sustainable River Basin Management by Kevin UramaSpecial Paper Series 23
Wastewater and Irrigated Agriculture Lessons Learned and Possible Applications in Africa by Frans Huibers, Lucas
Seghezzo and Adriaan Mels
Special Paper Series 24
Survey of Indigenous Water Management and Coping Mechanisms in Africa: Implications for Knowledge andTechnology Policy by Femi Olokesusi
Special Paper Series 25
Imbalance in Water Allocation Stability and Collaboration within the Nile Basin by Kinfe Abraham

For more information on this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org