TECHNOPOLICY BRIEF 5KEEPING HUNGER AT BAY: GENETIC
ENGINEERING AND FOOD SECURITY
IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAJohn Mugabe

AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKPublished by
The African Technology
Policy Studies Network,
P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post Office,Nairobi, Kenya.
© 2003 African Technology
Policy Studies Network (ATPS)
Printed by

ISBN: 9966-916-66-0

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary networkof researchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and other end-users
interested in generating, promoting and strengthening innovative science andtechnology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in Nairobi, the network
operates through national chapters in 17 African countries, with an expansion plan
to cover 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 andfarmers’ 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.
Technopolicy Briefs Series are commissioned short papers written byexperts from all over the world specifically to address current science andtechnology policy concerns and questions in Africa. The briefs are also
summaries of technical papers published under our WPS, SPS and RPS
written to highlight significant policy recommendations. These briefs are
writen with the busy policymakers and non-specialists in mind. The materials
are designed for general readership and help advance the advocacy andknwoledge brokerage roles of the ATPS.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, theRockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, CocaCola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, and the Royal Dutch Government.

Acronyms
AGERI
Bt
GMO
ICGEB
ITSC
KARI
NBFs
NEPAD
NGO
OECD
R&D
S&T
UNDP
UNU-INRAWFP

The Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research InstituteBacillus thuringensis
Genetically Modified Organism
International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
South African Institute for Tropical and Sub-Tropical Crops
Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteNational Biotechnology Funds
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non-Governmental Organization
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Research and Development
Science and Technology
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations University Institute for Natural Resources in Africa
World Food ProgrammeTable of Contents
1.0

Introduction

1

2.0

Food Production and Security in Africa: Genetic,
Social and Scientific Endowments

3

Genetic Engineering and Food Production: Research andDevelopment Outlook

6

4.0

Benefits and Risks of Genetic Engineering

85.0

The Way Forwad
Build public confidence and participation
Build and utilize public R&D capacity
Establish and apply regulatory instruments
Build public-private R&D partnerships

10
10
11
13
15

6.0

Conclusion

16

3.0

References

17

1.0
Introduction
Persistent poor agricultural production and rising food insecurity in sub-SaharanAfrica have placed the role of biotechnology and genetic engineering in humandevelopment into sharp focus. Growing food insecurity in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe and other countries of the region has
stimulated political and public attention on genetic engineering and on potential
benefits and risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. More than 20 million people
in the eastern and southern Africa are facing starvation.
There is an intense debate whether these countries should accept GM foods aspart of the urgently needed aid to stem catastrophic famine and loss of human life aswell as associated socio-political consequences. Unfortunately the debate is now
founded on old and extreme positions: one that espouses GM crops as the solution
to food insecurity and the other that speaks about genetic engineering and its products
as the potential source of human destruction. Between the two extremes are complex
policy and ethical issues, including:· food as cultural value· the relationship between humanity and nature· equity in accessing food· the relevance of modern science· national sovereignty· ability of African countries to engage in global scientific advances· public confidence in the scientific enterprise· public understanding of new technologies, and many others
These issues often emerge but are left unattended by the extreme pro and anti- GM
food activists because questions on the role of genetic engineering and causes offood insecurity (particularly in sub-Saharan Africa) are often poorly framed or
structured to suit predetermined interests of certain social and economic institutions.
The underlying question often is: Are GM foods the solution to food insecurity in

1

ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5
developing countries, particularly in Africa? This question is posed because of thetendency to reduce a complex system of science and techniques into a few of its
products, and the treatment of food production as a mechanic or inorganic enterprise.
This policy brief seeks to answer a different question: Under what conditions will
genetic engineering contribute to stemming the persistent emergence and growthof food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa? It is about measures that countries in theregion may wish to institute to acquire confidence and capability in using genetic
engineering to improve food production systems without undermining their social,ecological and economic foundations. The brief is about safe development andapplication of genetic engineering for food production in the region. It is premisedon the view that any consideration of the role and impacts of genetic engineering in
Africa should be cast in a broader context of the region’s scientific and technologicaldevelopment. Food aid in whatever form will not solve persistent food insecurity in
Africa. What the region requires are new forms of scientific and technologicalenterprises dedicated to improving food production in specific socio-ecologicalconditions. The next section sets the stage for the rest of the exploration by providing
a general overview of food production in the region.

22.0
Food Production and Security in Africa:
Genetic, Social and Scientific Endowments
Sub-Saharan Africa has a rich foundation for agricultural production and food security.
It has the necessary genetic and social endowments and components of scientificinstitutions required to marshall new advances in science and technology (S&T) not
only to solve the recurring food insecurity but also to contribute to global agriculturaldevelopment. As a rich genetic base, Africa has some of the world’s unique speciesof plants, animals and micro-organisms. Using plants as an indicator of the region’s
biodiversity, at least 45,000 higher plant species can be found in the continent.1 For
example, Malawi’s forests occupy some 3.6m ha of land area, accounting for 38%
of the total area and 97% of this is covered by indigenous species. The Harar
Highlands of Ethiopia have 169 types of crops that were once cultivated by local
farmers less than 50 years ago. Such a high degree of genetic diversity is howeverunderutilized today. 2 In the mid-1960s the Chagga community of Arusha/Kilimanjaroin Tanzania cultivated 111 crops of which 53 were trees, 29 food crops, 8 weed
species and 21 non-woody plants.
In addition to the genetic resources, sub-Saharan Africa has a diverse range ofsocial institutions—clans, tribes, pastoral communities, women groups and many
establishments that have rich knowledge of conservation, enhancement andutilization of resources in diverse agro-ecological conditions. An increasing amountof knowledge from these institutions is now harnessed and applied in modern
agricultural production and health systems of the industrialized world.

1 WCMC, 1992, p. 66.
2 Getahum, A. 1988, Tropical African Mountains and their Farming Systems, p. 119 in Riley, K.W. et. Al. eds.
(1988), Mountain Agriculture and Crop Genetic Resources. Aspect Publishing.

3

ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5Some sub-Saharan African countries have agricultural research institutions with, atleast, rudimentary infrastructure and human resources required to generate scientificknowledge and harness technology to contribute to increased food production andsecurity in the region. Recent surveys show that components of modern agriculturalresearch exist in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and possibly
many other sub-Saharan countries.3
Despite the genetic, social and scientific foundations, sub-Saharan Africa continues
to experience declining agricultural production and increasing food insecurity since
mid-1980s. For example, in 1998 the region saw poor agricultural performance, as
crop and livestock production is estimated to have expanded by less than 1% after
the marginal decline record in 1997. The share of total exports from agriculture
dropped from over 70% in the 1960s to less than 10% in 1998. In 1998 alone Ethiopia’s
agricultural productivity dropped significantly by roughly 8%. In 1998 the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that 48% of the children in
Ethiopia, 41% in Eritrea and 36% in Nigeria were malnourished.4
Related to the concerns of food insecurity are the increasing poverty, HIV/AIDS
epidemics and environmental degradation. More than half of the population in theregion lives on less than US$1 per day. Africa, with its rich genetic and cultural
diversity, is the poorest continent in the world. This is the paradox that has not beenadequately explained by scholars of African development.
Causes of poor agricultural production and food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa
are many, complex and interrelated. They include harsh ecological conditions thatmake it difficult for poor farmers with limited scientific and technological inputs to
produce enough food. Poor and deteriorating physical infrastructure also make it
difficult to access and transport food. Many public policies, including land tenure,deny these countries prospects of improving food production and security. In many

3 See below an overview of the status of biotechnology in Africa.
4 UNDP, 1998. Progress Against Poverty in Africa. United Nations Development Programme, New York.

4

Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
countries land tenure arrangements are ambiguous creating disincentives forsustainable agricultural production. Added to these factors is the low and declining
investment in agricultural science. Finding lasting solutions to food insecurity willthus require technical and non-technical means. We therefore stress that genetic
engineering can only contribute, and indeed significantly, to long-term food security.

53.0
Genetic Engineering and Food Production:
Research and Development Outlook
Genetic engineering is a set of powerful tools provided by advances in S&T. The
advances enable researchers to analyze the complete sequence of genes in plants,
human, animals and microorganisms. The mapping of genes has emerged as a
new area of genetic engineering called genomics that has made it possible tocomplete sequencing genes for rice among several other plants. This technique isproviding new genetic information on various traits and functions that are necessary
to improve crop production. Related to genomics is proteomics that is largely aboutcataloguing proteins within living organisms and providing the basis for linking specificgenes to specific proteins. Both genomics and proteomics offer new avenues for
improving plants’ resistance to pests and diseases and tolerance to environmental
conditions such as drought, acid soils and floods.
Genetic engineering and the associated scientific developments have been tapped
and used to develop new varieties of crops and new traits in livestock and fish. By
2001 more than 70 GM varieties of crops had been developed and registered forcommercial cultivation worldwide, including new varieties of cotton, potato, pumpkin,tobacco, tomato and clove. More than 15,000 field trials have been undertaken
globally. Today the total area under genetically improved crops is about 45m hacompared to 11m ha four years ago. Eighty percent of the area planted with GM
crops is in the industrialized countries with USA and Canada leading. The remaining
15% is found in few developing countries notably Argentina, China, Mexico andSouth Africa. Most of the global acreage is devoted to GM cotton, soybean, maize
and canola targeting insect resistance and herbicide tolerance as the main traits.
In Africa, South Africa and Egypt lead in genetic engineering and the development ofGM crops. South Africa has focused on maize, wheat, soybean, lupines, sunflowers
and sugarcane, among other crops. The first field trials for GM crops in the country
were initiated in 1990, while conditional commercial release permits were granted6Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
in 1997. More than 40 field trials of GM crops have been conducted in South Africa
and the country has now commercialized insect-resistant GM maize and insectresistant GM cotton.
Egypt has invested considerably in genetic engineering of potatoes, cotton, maize
and tomatoes. The country has at least 3000 scientists active in biotechnologyrelated fields and more than US$100 million annually allocated to biotechnology
R&D projects. Its leading public agricultural research agency, the Agricultural Genetic
Engineering Research Institute (AGERI), has conducted genetic transformation ofpotato, tomato, cucurbits, maize and cotton. It has also mapped the genome oftomato and rapeseed. The Centre for Genetic Engineering and Tissue Culture at
Menoufiya University has transferredBacillus thuringensis (Bt) toxin genes into cotton.
Recently the Government of Egypt and Monsanto entered into agreement to fieldtest and to subsequently commercialize cotton with the Bollard Bt gene.
On the whole, current genetic engineering efforts have focused on a narrow rangeof crops and traits. There is less focus on traits, such as drought and virus resistance,and on pulses, vegetables, fodder, among other crops. A large share of innovations
in genetic engineering and GM varieties is primarily driven by private industry fordeveloped country markets. The products developed so far have, with few exceptions,
not been targeted towards the needs of poor farmers in the developing world,
particularly Africa.

7

4.0
Benefits and Risks of Genetic Engineering
The debate on the benefits and risks of genetic engineering is relatively old and canbe traced back to the 1980s.5 Polarized into two extremes, the debate has intensified
with revolutions in the technology as new products, particularly GM foods, begun to
get into the marketplace. While extreme proponents of genetic engineering often
fail to recognize that some of its products may have risks, those opposed to thetechnology either ignore or do not understand its potential to contribute to humandevelopment.
Like many technologies, some of the products of genetic engineering may cause
risks to humans and the environment. There are concerns that introducing GM cropvarieties will negatively impact on the environment. A potential problem is that novel
genes might be unintentionally transferred by pollination to other plants, including
weeds and wild relatives of the crop species. There are fears that such transfers
could lead to the development of resistant ‘super-weeds’, loss of biodiversity withincrop species, and possibly, destabilization of entire ecosystems.
Concerns have also been expressed about the risks to human health by food products
derived from GM crops, especially where novel genes have been transferred tocrops from organisms that are not normally used in food or animal feed products.
Those opposed to genetic engineering have suggested that the transfer might
introduce previously unknown allergens into the food chain. Controversy was sparked
when a gene from a Brazil nut was successfully transferred into a variety of soybeanthat was being developed for animal feed. It was confirmed that the allergenic

5 See for example OECD, 1986. Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, and Rifkin, J. 1983. Algeny. Viking Press, New York, USA.

8

Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
properties of the nut were expressed in the soybean. However, the counter-argument
was that this case demonstrated the effectiveness of scientific testing for safety. The
allergen was specifically tested for during the development process, and from thepositive results the product was never developed for commercial use. Scientists
further argue that the structure and characteristics of known allergens are well
documented, and that testing for possible new allergens is therefore relatively easy.
Clearly, genetic engineering offers new avenues for increasing food production in
sub-Saharan Africa. Its potential risks must, however, be assessed and effectively
managed. It is a set of new tools to develop drought resistant crop varieties, improve
the nutritional quality of crops like sorghum, cassava, millet and sweet-potato, reduce
post-harvest crop loses, improve livestock’s resistance to disease, and enable farmers
to cultivate in saline conditions. Recent assessments (see Quaim 1999), pathogenfree banana plants in Kenya attempt to assess socio-economic benefits ofbiotechnology in general and genetic engineering in particular. Quaim’s ex-ante
analysis of the impact of pathogen-free banana shows, for the larger farms, that an
average yields increase of 93% can be anticipated, and this may increase to 150%
for smallholders. The technology in this case has been developed through public/
private partnership involving the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), theSouth African Institute for Tropical and Sub-Tropical Crops (ITSC), and two tissue
culture companies.
‘Golden’ rice is another example of how genetic engineering can be used wisely tocontribute to the solution of food insecurity. In this case, genetic engineering has
been deployed to develop a rice variety that can produce beta-carotene metabolized
into Vitamin A. This new variety has the potential to address the growing problem ofVitamin A that causes partial or total blindness in several million children in Africa
each year. The challenge now is to make this variety available to African rice farmers,
and possibly to develop it further for African conditions.

95.0
The Way Forward for Africa
How then should African countries respond to the opportunities and challenges
posed by genetic engineering? We suggest that these countries should establish
broad-based platforms to mobilize the public and scientific communities to build
confidence in the technological advances associated with genetic engineering. In
addition, they will need to identify their specific national priorities in food production
and harness the growing body of science and innovations in genetic engineering toaddress specific problems. Public research and development (R&D) agencies andpolicies dedicated to genetic engineering as well as partnerships with private industry
will be crucial, and lastly African countries will need to develop and implement
regulatory measures to manage any environmental, economic, health and social
risks associated with genetic engineering. Below, we explore each action.
Build Public Confidence and Participation
Science in general and genetic engineering in particular are not evolving in a sociopolitical vacuum. The African public and politicians have (or should have) a directinterest in scientific advances and technological developments associated withgenetic engineering, yet they are not participating in the GM debate. Many countries
within the region are facing obstacles that hinder the citizens’ participation in thedebate on the impacts of GM crops and the potential role of genetic engineering insolving food insecurity. Considerable institutional space in the debate has beentaken by isolated groups of non-governmental organizations (NGO) opposed to GM
crops and purporting to speak for the African rural poor, and groups of scientists who
espouse the benefits of the new technology for the poor. It is unlikely that the twogroups: anti and pro-GM crops groups have the attention of millions of farmers in
Africa. The general public and farmers in particular are not informed about thenature of the technology, its potential benefits and risks, and rarely do they participate
in deciding on what crops or problems biotechnology research and development
should focus on.
10

Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
The intensifying debate on GM crops, confusing counter claims from pro and antiGM activists, and often passive reactions by African governments, is likely to makethe public lose confidence in the scientific enterprise and overall decision-making
authorities. Processes that will legitimately bring the voices of the public to informand change the focus and content of the current debate are necessary. Governments
and other stakeholders should take the following actions to build public participationand confidence:(a) Undertake well-structured and objective assessment of African public perceptionsof and/or opinions on genetic engineering and GM products. Such assessments
must be accompanied by organized activities to provide the public with reliable
and adequate information on the nature of the technology and its products.
(b) Have public stakeholders—the youth, women, farmers and other social groups—
legitimately represented on bodies that are charged with regulating GM import,
development and commercialization. Currently, it is difficult to determine thelegitimate loci of GM decision-making in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
Even where biosafety frameworks have been developed and adopted (e.g. in
Zimbabwe and Kenya), political institutions have ignored them and often madepolicy pronouncements that are not necessarily founded on science andinformed by public opinion. What is required is the review and determination of
appropriate decision-making mechanisms. Such mechanisms should haverepresentation from all stakeholders including farmers, consumers,
environmentalists and religious bodies.
If genetic engineering is to improve food production in Africa, it should be guided toco-evolve with local, social and economic production systems. Appropriate socialand economic institutions will be required to articulate demand for the technology
and to act as ‘watchdogs’ for its responsible application. We are proposing thatbroad-based platforms that enlarge public confidence in genetic engineering throughopen participation in priority setting and decision-making are established.
Build and Utilize Public R&D Capacity
To harness and benefit from advances in genetic engineering as well as to manage
any risks, African countries need to build a diverse range of human and institutional
capacities. They require expertise in molecular biology, biochemical engineering,
11

ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5plant breeding and bioinformatics, among other areas. They also need national
agencies or institutes dedicated to the conduct and management of genetic
engineering. Currently many African countries do not have such agencies. Theirlimited investments in genetic engineering and biotechnology tend to be in the formof projects scattered across the institutional landscape. This is in sharp contrast to
the organization of biotechnology and genetic engineering activities in Cuba, China,
India and the USA where special centers devoted to genetic engineering have been
established. It is probably only in Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa where agencies
dedicated to biotechnology are found.
It is crucial that each African country identifies and implements measures to build
dedicated biotechnology agencies. Such efforts may focus on identifying a few
potential national institutes, and providing political support and financial resources
for them to grow into national centers of excellence in genetic engineering for foodproduction. National centers of excellence should focus on specific priority problems
identified through public participation. They need significant and predictable funding
and should have explicit links to the private sector. In addition to research, theyshould also devote their attention to training scientists in new science fields, such as
genomics.
The establishment of national centers of excellence in genetic engineering need togo hand in hand with the creation of appropriate mechanisms to finance R&D.
Current funding of biotechnology R&D is still relatively low to enable African countries
to effectively engage in genetic engineering. For example, an assessment by Falconi(1999) showed that Indonesia’s total expenditure for funding biotechnology R&D in
1985-96 was US$18.7 million while Kenya spent just about US$3.0 million. Nigeria
and South Africa are increasing their financial investment in biotechnology andgenetic engineering. The Federal Government of Nigeria will provide the National
Biotechnology Development Agency with an average of US$ 263 million per year forthe next three years as a start-up grant. South Africa’s new biotechnology strategy
commits more than US$ 300 million per year from government to finance a variety ofbiotechnology initiatives. Other countries of the region need to invest more in genetic
engineering. Some of them may wish to create special funding mechanisms (possibly
National Biotechnology Funds (NBFs) for R&D. Such mechanisms would mobilize

12Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
domestic and international public and private finance to support specific priority
research and innovation activities that target the improvement of food production.
Establish and Apply Regulatory Instruments
Many African countries lack coherent regulatory instruments and institutions tomanage risks related to genetic engineering. Where instruments have beenformulated and adopted by governments, there are weak institutional arrangements
for enforcing regulatory procedures. As a result, there is no consensus on how best
to respond to global developments in genetic engineering and, particularly, whether
to allow the importation and/or development of GM crops. The current controversy
over GM food aid to Zambia and Zimbabwe clearly demonstrates the importancefor governments to institute and apply regulatory instruments as well as risk
assessment and management procedures.
In June 2002 the government of Zimbabwe rejected a consignment of 17,500 tonsof maize from the USA because it was not certified free of GM material. The
government was concerned that some of the grains would be planted and thus
releasing GM into the environment and potentially undermining the country’s exports
to the European Union and other countries that have banned GM foods.6 Zambia
also rejected GM maize from the USA citing potential human health risks despite theassurance from the US administration that the maize had been tested and proven to
be safe.
There are many interest groups, ranging from scientists to activists that are debating
whether African countries should accept GM foods. What is of concern is that they
have paid little or no attention on how best to use existing national, regional andinternational regulatory instruments to make informed decisions. Some groups may
be exploiting political uncertainty and economic instability, among other situations,to promote narrow agendas that deny the public a choice and to undermine national

6 Zimbabwe’s government recently accepted the GM maize after protracted controversy and diplomaticinterventions from the USA and the World Food Programme (WFP).

13

ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5
learning from the application of risk assessment and management instruments. In
Zimbabwe, for example, the debate acquired an intense political tone and locus ofdecision-making became full of intense diplomatic interventions denying local
scientists and national regulatory authority space to engage in risk assessment. Our
survey and consultations with relevant government officials and scientists show thatthe government did not, in a procedural way, apply provisions of national biosafety
regulations. The Research (Biosafety) Regulations—Statutory Instrument 20 of
2000—regulate the development and application of modern biotechnology in
general, and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in particular. The law vests
responsibility for risk assessment with the National Biosafety Board (establishedunder section 4). This Board did not get an opportunity to conduct scientific analysisof the GM maize offered by the USA.
Risk management and making decisions on the development, importation and useof GM crops are knowledge-intensive responsibilities that require the participationof scientists and consumers. Appropriate regulatory instruments should guide theseprocesses. Such instruments should enable countries to invoke the precautionary
principle without denying them opportunities to address short-term and urgent needs,
particularly in accessing and providing food to the hungry. They should create
institutional arrangements that mobilize domestic and international science to makeinformed decisions.
There is need to build national capacity to assess and respond to risks and tap
benefits generated by genetic engineering. Initiatives such as the capacity building
programme of the International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology(ICGEB) will play a major role in building the capacity of African countries to conduct
risk assessment. The ICGEB is engaged in the building of national capacity inindustrial, agricultural, pharmaceutical, animal and human health biotechnology.
The ICGEB has now more than 30 affiliated centers around the world, some ofwhich have emerged into centers of excellence in genetic engineering.

14

Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-Saharan Africa
Build Public-Private R&D Partnerships
A large and growing portion of the scientific information and investments in genetic
engineering are held by the private sector mainly in the industrialized world. According
to Ernst & Young, for example, in 1997 US companies invested US$9.4 billion in
R&D, employed 140,000 people and posted total revenues of US$18 billion. At thesame time there were 1,036 European companies working in the life sciences,
employing more than 39,000 people directly, with revenues of US$3.1 billion and
US$2.2 billion invested in R&D.7 For public research institutions in Africa to accessthis information they will need to create strategic links with the private companies in
the industrialized countries. The second reason is based on effective
commercialization of biotechnology with the participation of private sector. The
economic history of public R&D in many parts of the world demonstrates that publicagencies have limited capacity to engage in the commercialization of new
innovations. They often require private entrepreneurs to take their innovations into
the economic domain.
Another good reason is that private biotechnology companies are potential new
sources of financial resources for biotechnology R&D in Africa. The historicalevolution of biotechnology in the United States, Germany and Japan vividly
demonstrates the role of companies as sources of finance for biotechnology R&D.
In Japan, companies have financed biotechnology R&D through venture capitaland other arrangements. In the USA they have financed university departments andscientists to undertake specific research on contract basis. African countries may
wish to explore and exploit financial opportunities associated with partnering withprivate companies.

7 See Falconi, C. 1999 for Ernest and Young data.

15

6.0
Conclusion
Rapid scientific and technological advances associated with genetic engineeringand biotechnology offer challenges and opportunities for African countries to addresssome causes of persistent food insecurity. Tapping these opportunities andconfronting the challenges will require knowledge-based platforms for decisionmaking and increased investment in scientific development. Africa should eschew
either the pro or anti- GM foods sentiments and erect scientific and technologicalfoundations for harnessing benefits of the new science while at the same time
reducing risks. It is through their own investment in genetic engineering that they areable to make informed decisions on which specific GM crops to import or accept as
part of any food aid. Furthermore, with increased investment in genetic engineeringthat targets specific food production challenges, the region may be able to build thebasis for food security: reducing dependency on food aid. Africa requires genetic
engineering as part and parcel of its endogenous scientific and technologicaldevelopment.

16

References
Avramovic, M. 1996. An Affordable Development? Biotechnology, Economics andthe Implications for the Third World. Zed Books, London.
Brenner, C. and Komen, J. 1994. International Initiatives in Biotechnology for
Developing Country Agriculture: Promises and Problems. Development Centre
Studies, OECD, Paris.
Brenner, C. and Komen, J. eds., 1996. Integrating Biotechnology in Agriculture:
Incentives, Constraints and Country Experiences. Report of a Policy Seminarfor West Asia and North Africa. International Service for National Agricultural
Research (ISNAR).
Bunders, J. ed. 1990. Biotechnology for Small-Scale Farmers in Developing
Countries. VU University Press, Amsterdam.
Falconi, C. 1999. ‘Agricultural Biotechnology Research Indicators and Managerial
Considerations in Four Developing Countries’, p. 24-37 in Cohen, J.I. ed. 1999.
Managing Agricultural Biotechnology—Addressing Research Program Needs
and Policy Implications. CAB International.
Farrington, J. 1989. Agricultural Biotechnology: Prospects for the Third World.
Overseas Development Institute, London.
Fransman, M. 1991. Biotechnology: Generation, diffusion and policy, An Interpretive
Survey. UNU/INTECH Working Paper No. 1.
Juma, C. 1989. The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Zed
Books, London.
Juma, C., J. Mugabe, and P. Kameri-Mbote, eds. 1995. Coming to Life: Biotechnology
in African Economic Recovery. Nairobi: Acts Press (in press).
Kenney, M. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven,
Yale University Press.
Komen, J. 1999. ‘International Collaboration in Agricultural Biotechnology’, p. 110127 in Cohen, J.I. ed. 1999. Managing Agricultural Biotechnology—Addressing
Research Program Needs and Policy Implications. CAB International.

17

ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5
Krimsky, S. 1982. Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA
Controversy. MIT Press, Boston.
Mugabe, J. 2000. Biotechnology in Developing Countries and Countries with
Economies in Transition: Strategic Capacity Building Considerations. United
Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development and United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Geneva,
Switzerland.
OECD 1989. Technology and Global Competition: The Challenge for Newly
Industrializing Countries . Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment: Paris.
Orsenigo, L. 1989. The Emergence of Biotechnology. Pinter Publishers, London.
OECD, 1998. Biotechnology and the Changing Role of Government. Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
OTA 1992. Biotechnology in a Global Economy. Office of Technology Assessment of
the United States of America, Washington DC.
Sasson, A. 1988. Biotechnologies and Development. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
UNCTAD. 1990. Transfer and Development of Technology in Developing Coun-tries:
A Compendium of Policy Issues. New York: United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development.
United Nations. 1963. Science and Technology for Development: Report on the
United Nations Conference on the Applications of Science and Technology for
the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas. New York: United Nations.
United Nations (1992), Agenda 21. Report of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development.
United Nations 1992. Biotechnology and Development: Expanding the Capacity to
Produce Food. Unite Nations, New York.
Warhurst, A. 1989. New Directions for Empirical Policy Research in Biotechnology.
Paper presented at the International Symposium on Biotechnology for
Sustainable Development, March 1989, African Centre for Technology Studies,
Nairobi.
Wiegele, T. 1991. Biotechnology and International Relations: The Political
Dimensions. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18

ATPS Technopolicy Briefs Series
Who Benefits from the New International Intellectual Property Rights Regime? And
What Should Africa Do? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 1)
How Can We Constitutionalize Innovation, Technology and Intellectual Property in
Kenya ? by Bernard Sihanya(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 2)What Can Biotechnology Do For Africa? How Can The Associated Risks And
Uncertainties Be Managed? by Norman Clark(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 3)
Who Needs Technology Policy? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 4)
Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-SaharanAfrica by John Mugabe(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5)

The author is the Executive Secretary of the African Commission on Science andTechnology and Science Policy Advisor to the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD). This policy brief is based on a longer paper on biotechnology
and agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa to be published by the United
Nations University Institute for Natural Resources in Africa (UNU-INRA). Views
expressed in this brief are personal.

For more information 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: +254-2-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-2-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org