Poor nations urged to adopt laws on LMOs

They were speaking during the Nairobi meeting of stakeholders from East and Central Africa to discuss and identify critical decision points and information requirements that would help countries in the region develop national biosafety systems.
They echoed the sentiments of Dr Julian Kinderlerer of the Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield, the United Kingdom, who argues that this legal framework is a must if the developing nations are to gain from biotechnological advances.
In their publication, Regulating Genetically-Modified Seeds in Emerging Economies, Dr Traynor and Dr Komen add that a range of organisations and research institutes are developing or transferring to developing countries agricultural biotechnology products and tools which need biosafety review.
Dr Traynor is a research faculty member of the Franklin Biotech Centre of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the US, while Dr Komen is an associate research officer at the International Service for Agricultural Research (ISNAR).
They argue that four elements should be in place –the policy, the people, the process and the public—that together help to generate environmentally responsible decisions. Appropriate oversight of LMO releases in the environment could be achieved through the establishment of a national biosafety system, they stressed.
Recognising that most developing countries have not established functional biosafety systems, the stakeholders discussed and identified critical decision points and information requirements that would help countries in the region develop the systems.
The seminar, held in Nairobi, brought together more than 68 officials from different stakeholder groups, including Members of Parliament, regulatory agencies universities, consumer groups, non-governmental organisations and seed producers.
It was evident from the discussions and presentations that countries in the region do not have a policy in place, but are only in the drafting process.
Recommendations and suggestions were made by participants regarding the way forward. In particular, it was recommended that countries in the region should make every effort to harmonise biosafety policies and strategies.
Countries were urged to consider establishing an autonomous body responsible for the implementation of the policy. It was suggested that countries make sure that the policy contains provisions promoting the commercialisation of biotechnology products.
Countries were also urged to create an enabling environment for the private sector as well as avoid conflict between the current policies, signed agreements and the biotechnology/biosafety policy.
In order to address gaps and constraints, nations were called upon to lay more emphasis on awareness raising in biosafety policy formulation, including funding for awareness raising inorder to address gaps and contraints. Retraining of civil servants in free-market skills was also recommended.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was cited as one of the agencies that could play an advisory role. The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) was recommended as a body that should lobby governments and parliamentarians.
UNEP-GEF support was said to be an incentive that could be used to promote harmonization, and its focal points and co-ordination office was urged to make sure the national biosafety frameworks contain common elements.
It was suggested that a technical working group be formulated with representatives of all the regional bodies working on biosafety to produce a document aimed at harmonising national biosafety frameworks, spelling out common elements.
It was suggested that approvals be sought at regional stakeholder meetings and adoption done at high-level meetings of ministers responsible for biosafety in the Asareca member countries.
The need to have an administrative home for the regional office was emphasised and members agreed that the Asareca secretariat be the starting point.
However, the participants pointed out that the body might need an expanded mandate with an inventory of regional expertise.
The need to encourage private sector investment was underscored by putting in place a stable and predictable regulatory environment and ensuring scientific capacity within the system.
They suggested that in the short run countries could leverage capacity through sub-regional biosafety co-operation and harmonization. This could be in the form of sharing training and facilities. In the longer run they could develop an action plan aimed at putting research, including biotechnology, on the policy agenda.
The delegates underscored the need to raise awareness, with the government taking the lead and build capacity through government resources and donor community support.
In order to foster harmonisation, it was recommended that regional co-operation be institutionalised through a regional clearing-house, which will act as a technical tool to facilitate information exchange.
It was recommended that a regional information website and other information channels be established. The African Union was called upon to help facilitate the linkage between sub-regional networks.
The meeting was jointly organised by the Asareca, the East African Regional Programme and Research Network for Biotechnology, the Biosafety and Biotechnology Policy Development (BIO-EARN), the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) and the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).