Aware of the weakness of the OAU, with only one junior officer in-charge of Environment for the whole continent, and armed with this endorsement letter, the group quickly transformed itself into an ad hoc department of environment for the continental body inviting selected individuals to Addis to rubberstamp the document they call the OAU Model law on biosafety without the involvement of member states and government experts.
A central feature of the model law is the establishment of the controversial biosafety facility in Addis Ababa and the fact that it contains numerous provisions which are inconsistent with the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) already signed by most African countries.
Sources within the OAU in Addis also confirmed to Biosafety News that when it was mooted in 1998 the idea of a model law on biosafety for Africa was desirable but the initiative has since been hijacked by extremist groups.
It is the process the group has used to develop the model law which has angered representatives of member states and major biotech stakeholders on the continent. In a protest letter to the Secretary General of the OAU Mr. Amara Essy the chairman of the Nairobi based African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF) Prof. James Ochanda complained of the not-so transparent method used by Dr Tewolde’s group.
“We are concerned that the process being used by the people the OAU has entrusted to develop the model law is neither transparent nor participatory and the outcome cannot be expected to capture the aspirations of the African people,” he said.
He drew Mr. Essay’s attention to the fact that the NGO’s behind the initiative do not have the backing of the member states and that their initiative is not accountable to other stakeholders including government experts.
Perhaps what infuriates ABSF most is the fact that Dr Tewolde is a well-known critic of biotech and is a front for NGOs opposed to biotechnology in Africa such as the Third World Network, the Institute of Sustainable Development headed by his wife and The Sunshine Project.
The South African representative to the just concluded Inter-Governmental Committee on the Cartagena Protocol (ICCP3) meeting in The Hague, Netherlands also criticized the initiative saying South Africa has never been invited to participate in any meeting to develop a model law on biosafety for African countries. “Definitely South Africa has never been invited to participate in any such meetings and neither has any document been sent to us for our comment. South Africa has had no role in the initiative,” Dr Gert Willemse who heads South Africa’s Biodiversity Conservation Unit , the country’s Biosafety Focal Point told Biosafety News In The Hague, Netherlands.
This is ironical because South Africa is perhaps the only country in Africa which has commercialized production of transgenic crops such as maize and cotton and has also enacted legislation specifically to deal with GMO’S . The GMO Act enacted in January 1997 by the South African Parliament established the GMO Executive Council composed of representatives from various ministries . The council is the supreme body that oversees all matters relating to Gomes in South Africa.
Critics of the OAU initiative say that at least the South African model could have formed a good reference point for the drafters of the model law.
The Kenya government has also voiced concern over the issue; with Mrs. Grace Thitai, a member of the country’s Biosafety Council, saying, “The idea of the African Model Law was suggested merely as a back-up in case the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety did not take into consideration the Africa Group’s concerns. But now that the Protocol is in place there is no need for it.”
And Mr. David Hafashimana of Uganda also confirmed that the Model Law was supposed to be a fall back document in case the negotiations on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety failed, adding since the protocol was now in place, the model law had no basis.
“ There is no way we can have a Model Law for African countries alone,” he stressed.
Mr. Abisai Mafa of the Biosafety Research Council of Zimbabwe also told Biosafety News that such a proposal could only be submitted with the full approval of all member countries of the OAU.
“We need to submit the proposal to the respective governments and their coordinators as well as seek stakeholders views, for this will ensure the process is all-involving,” he said.
The German government also has questions to ask about the project. To begin with, they wonder how it is related to the UNEP-GEF projects in Africa.
They want to know how the proposed project would be used to foster regional and sub regional co-operation among national biosafety systems. It is this cooperation that the project is unlikely to get, if the sentiments of the representatives of governments are to go by.
It is widely feared that the African Model Law could be presented for adoption at the upcoming Council meetings of the African Union.
Experts fear that if this happens, and it is adopted, the law could prevent the continent from implementing the CBD because it contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with the Protocol and perhaps other related conventions.
In fact many African delegates at the ICCP-3 meeting said that adoption of the law would result in a defacto moratorium on biotechnology in Africa-something the NGOs have demanded for many years.
It would also send a clear signal to the United Nations and the rest of the World that Africa has rejected the Biosafety Protocol, which has already been signed by more than 24 African nations.
This will leave Africa out of step with many other countries that support workable Protocol implementation and hamper Africa’s ability to influence negotiations in international forum.
Approval of the model law also would indicate to public and private partners that Africans do not want biotechnology, including technology transfers and capacity building in their countries.
But Dr Tewolde said in Addis Ababa recently that the proposal was in response to the OAU workshop on the African Model Law on Biosafety held in Ethiopia in May 2001 that recommended the establishment of a focal point for Biosafety for Africa within the OAU structure.
However, critics argue that the meeting lacked mandate because it was mainly attended representatives of the anti-biotech NGOs. It appears the OAU has no choice but to rescind its decision to support the NGOs initiatives.