Dr. O. N. Muchena
Hon Minister of State for Science andTechnology Development in the Office of the President and Cabinet.
The Chairperson, Dr. John Mugabe, Executive Secretary of the NEPAD Science and Technology Forum, Dr. Lindiwe Sibanda, Chairperson, FANRPAN; Professor Joachim von Braun, Director General, IFPRI; Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
It is my pleasure and privilege to welcome you to this very important Southern Africa session of the African Policy Dialogues on Biotechnology. We could say that debates and arguments over the role, safety economic and social implications of biotechnology and its products in Africa have brought us here. Biotechnology is a very contentious and explosive issue. You may recall the diverse responses of countries in the sub-region when the issue of Genetically Modified (GM) food aid became a reality.Many of questions were asked with very few answers provided. Should we accept GM food aid? Is it safe? Who carried out the food safety tests? How thorough were those tests? What about the long-term effects? What are the effects of discharging Genetically Modified Organisms into the environment? Are we not likely to loose our markets if we accept GMOs? And what is this biotechnology, the person in the street asks?
THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
Biotechnology refers to a basket of scientific techniques that are used to modify life forms with the aim of producing products and services. These include composting, breeding, marker assisted selection, tissue culture, cheese making, cloning, genetic engineering, genomics, protein engineering and DNA fingerprinting. Biotechnology itself is not new. Traditional biotechnology applications such as microbial and food fermentation, tissue culture, breeding and composting have been around for some time. What is new is the degree, precision and speed with which living organisms can be altered using advanced molecular techniques. Genetic and molecular breakthroughs are pushing forward the frontiers of how people can use biotechnology to eradicate poverty, increase their incomes, live longer, be healthier, enjoy a better standard of living, participate more in their communities and lead more creative lives. Most of the successes registered the last fifty years in food, agriculture, healthy, and environmental management were due to biotechnological advancements. The world has witnessed two biotechnology revolutions, the agricultural or green revolution and the gene/molecular revolution. Already many countries are benefiting immensely from the systematic application of biotechnology agriculture and health. food processing, in agriculture and health.THE DEBATES
Yet there are serious rifts over the economic, social and ecological value and costs of modern biotechnologies such as genetic engineering. We are all aware that every technological advance brings potential benefits and risks. At times, the hidden costs of technologies can be devastating. Think of the mad cow disease, ozone-depleting substances not to talk of there results of nuclear physics on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our challenge is to sift through the economic, political and sensational debris and identify legitimate concerns that merit our attention. Biotechnology products like GMOs raise economic, environmental, health and social concerns. We are afraid of loosing our markets if we deliberately grow GM crops. The contentions between EU and USA over GM Foods resulting in court cases are a case in point. There are fears that GM foods may cause new allergies, may be toxic or may result in the development of super weeds. Our farmers are afraid of loosing their power to save seed through restrictive intellectual property regimes that come with biotechnological advancements.
THE POLITICS
Moreover, proponents of the technology have often over exaggerated the benefits of the technology for economic, political and social reasons. Statements such as 'GMOs will stop hunger in Africa' are not only misplaced but also provocative. We know that poverty and hunger are caused by a number of economic, social and politically factors. Narrowing the cause of hunger to the absence of one technology is really missing the point. Would we be wrong to think that the motives, behind these reductionist statements are a way of looking for markets for their products. On the other hand, those who are completely against the technology cannot be exonerated from drenching people with. emotional arguments. Yes, we know that biotechnology like all other technologies should be used with caution to prevent harm. However, we have been fed more with emotion than science based arguments, and because of that many people are scared at the mere mention of biotechnology. There has also been a deliberate effort to equate biotechnology with GMOs. Yet there are a lot of biotechnological tools that do not result in GMOs. Yes we are fully convinced that the prudent application of modern biotechnologies in all fields of human endeavour will pay huge dividends. Today the bulk of our insulin is obtained from genetically modified micro organisms. Cotton and maize farmers are making huge savings in pesticide costs by planting insect protected crops. Most of our human and animal vaccines are now DNA based. With DNA fingerprinting we are able to identify disaster victims, prosecute criminals and resolve paternity disputes. We know some, usually in the North, are against the technology because its products will flood their markets, force their farmers off the land and make them dependent on the developers of the technology. Others like in Africa are also afraid of loosing their main source of organically produced food.The emotive nature of the debate, and the prescriptive approach of some experts has led many a times to throwing away the baby with the bath water. We have to separate genuine concerns from rumours, real benefits from hype. This calls for continuous and transparent dialogue. The dialogue however needs to be backed by systematic research, and cost benefit analysis. Capacity to do this work in the region exists. We just need to pull our resources together.
THE CHALLENGES
Our challenge is not just to put to rest the debate over whether biotechnological advances can help human development, but also to help identify the national, regional and global policy, institutional and regulatory frameworks. Such policies and regulatory frameworks can best accelerate the benefits of biotechnological advances while carefully safeguarding against the new risks that inevitably accompany them.No country can afford to ignore biotechnology and hope to succeed in this highly competitive global village. Sound policies and not charity will determine whether the new biotechnologies will be a tool for human development in Southern Africa. Countries need to implement policies that encourage innovation and investment in biotechnology R&D. This should be complimented with rigorous biosafety systems, ensuring that countries reap maximum benefits, and minimise risks associated with the technology. However national policies will not be sufficient without appropriate regional and global policy and regulatory regimes such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Bonn Guidelines on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing and the International Treaty on Genetic Resources for food and agriculture.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international agreement on the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms. It however has a very narrow scope focusing only on the transboundary movement of products of genetic engineering. Other biotechnology tools and products such as cloning, genomics, protein engineering and nanobiotechnology are not included.
The Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit sharing are non-legally binding international guidelines on ownership of biological resources, access modalities and benefit sharing including benefits from intellectual property right claims. These guidelines are very important for developing countries that are home to a diverse range of plant, animal and microbial life and yet are not benefiting fully from the exploitation of these resources.
The International Treaty on Genetic Resources is an international agreement on conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, sustainable use of its components and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of these resources.
These international arrangements are a good starting point. They are not adequate. Efforts should be put into developing comprehensive biotechnology regulatory and policy frames that cover all biotechnologies. The development of such frameworks should be done with the full participation of Africa. We have been short-changed many times. International frameworks should not be put in place to safeguard the interests of a few economically privileged countries. The development of international policy and regulatory frameworks should be all-inclusive.
Ladies and Gentlemen I know that many people are restless when GMOs are mentioned. The challenge here is to de-emotionalise debates on biotechnology. We need continuous dialogue to thresh out both science and nonscience biotechnology issues. The goal is to come up with a regional position over their handling and use. If we do not do that, we risk throwing out the baby with the bath water, as well as risk carrying out other peoples' agendas that are neither relevant nor useful for Africa's development. We are therefore very grateful to NEPAD, FANRPAN and IFPRI for creating an opportunity for countries of the SADC region to meet and discuss these contentious issues. Dialogues such as this one should help us come up with a well thought out regional position that should strengthen our place in the global considerations on biotechnology.
I would like to challenge SADC scientists to develop a coherent biosafety agenda under our own conditions. An agenda to evaluate the potential biotechnology risks, and mechanisms to manage such risks. A lot has been said about safety of GMOs, but very little work has been done to support such claims. This calls for collaboration of both those who support the technology without reservations, and those not in favour to work together towards a common good for Africa. If we don't, we will continue to be recipients of sound science, the costs and the benefits of biotechnologies. Where is the voice of the African scientist? We certainly are competent enough to make a case for ourselves and not to be dependent on outsiders for opinions or positions on matters of such grave importance. Outsiders are of course still welcome, but only as equal and smart partners for mutual benefits.
We should seek to maximise benefits and minimise the risks associated with the technology. Many potential harms can be predicted and their likelihood minimised through systematic scientific research, regulation and institutional support.We need to think strategically, and act collectively as Africans to defend our resources, develop our capacity to feed ourselves, and maintain our dignity as we shape our future. I hope this workshop will indeed act as a first step in harmonising our thinking, debating, promoting and regulating the safe and responsible use of biotechnology in pursuit of our developmental goals and priorities. I wish you fruitful deliberations, and declare the workshop officially opened.
