Report | Opening | Participants

Experts Group meeting on Biotechnology for Africa's Development ECA , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3-5 July 2002

I. ATTENDANCE AND ORGANIZATION

II. ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDINGS

A. Opening of the Meeting

1. After outlining the programme of the meeting, Mr. Abassa thanked the experts for accepting to participate at the meeting and to share their experiences in Biotechnology for the development of Africa. He said that African scientists needed to be organized in order to play their required role. In this context, the biotechnology meeting for Africa’s sustainable development was not only about the presentation of technical papers and learning about progress made but it was also about getting organized and effectively implementing together, a programme aimed at moving the biotechnology agenda for Africa’s development forward.

2. In his opening remarks, Mr. Mokwunye lauded the working relationship between ECA and INRA and thanked the Commission for the invitation extended to INRA to participate in and contribute to the meeting. He was also pleased that INRA was able to provide a guest lecturer, Dr. Mugabe, for the meeting. He then put the meeting in the context of the development challenge of ensuring food security in Africa. He referred to two declarations by African Heads of State in Monrovia in 1978 and Lagos in 1980 on the development of Africa which were based on the effective utilization of its natural resources. It was in recognition of this fact that INRA was established in 1985 as one of the five research institutions of the UN University by the United Nations at the request of African leaders. He said that it was critical to know that over the years, Africa has had two major resources – its human and natural resources- and that if these were developed and used properly, Africa would never be the poorest region in the world. In order to achieve this, it was important to add value to Africa’s natural resources through the use of science and technology. He therefore hoped that this meeting would come out with an ECA BIO programme that can contribute to this goal.

3. In his opening remarks, Mr. Josué Dioné, who stood in for the Executive Secretary, welcomed participants to the workshop. He indicated that the meeting was taking place at a time when African Heads of State had adopted the NEPAD which signals the recognition that past development strategies had generally failed and that there was the need to double efforts on all fronts with a resolve to do better.

4. Mr. Dione also reminded the experts that Africa continues to be plagued with rampant poverty, hunger and famine; poor health; degradation of natural resources and loss of biodiversity; de-industrialisation; and profound energy crisis.

5. He indicated that Africa’s economy is heavily based on agriculture but that this sector has the lowest productivity in the world. Africa also imports 25 percent of its grain requirements and more than half of African countries need food aid

6. He catalogued severe health and nutritional problems in Africa. Malnutrition typified by underweight, stunting and wasting was noted with about 200 million people suffering from this. Malaria, HIV/AIDS pandemic, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases wreck a major havoc in Africa in terms of mortality and morbidity.

7. Natural Resources degradation exemplified by escalating deforestation, soil erosion, declining soil fertility, salinization, soil compaction, soil pollution by agro-chemicals and desertification are eroding the rich biodiversity of Africa.

8. He, however, expressed the hope that with recent developments on the continent, the negative trend could be reversed. He mentioned the wind of democratization blowing over the continent, development of institutions such as free press, women empowerment and participation, civil society and other stakeholder participation in public policy and the continued existence of vast and rich biodiversity on the continent. He indicated that these were pillars on which biotechnology could to build a giant and prosperous continent.

9. Based upon these issues, he asked the meeting to consider the following two questions, namely:

· How can modern biotechnology contribute to poverty eradication?
· How can the UN-ECA help African countries reap the fruits of biotechnology for their sustainable development?

10. From these two questions he requested the meeting to:

· provide an understanding of the potential role, benefits, and risks associated with the use of modern biotechnology for economic development;
· review the progress made by African countries in addressing the issues related to the realization of the promise of biotechnology in Africa;
· assist in formulating and providing guidance on the implementation of an ECA Biotechnology Programme for the Sustainable development of Africa or ECA-BIO; and
· formulate recommendations aimed at increasing the contribution of modern biotechnology to the sustainable development of the Region

B. Organizational Matters

(a) Election of the Chairperson and Rapporteur

The following were elected Chaiperson and Rapporteur:

- Mr. Uzo Mokwunye, Director of INRA - Chairperson
- Prof. Joseph Wekundah - Rapporteur
Executive Director of Biotechnology
Trust Africa, Nairobi

(b) Adoption of the Agenda and Programme of Work

11. The provisional agenda and programme of work were adopted without amendment. The programme of work was broken into three parts. The first part was on thematic lectures. The second part was devoted to the sub-regional progress reports on biotechnology development and application. The final part was a break-up session.

C. First plenary session

Thematic Lectures: Making Biotechnology work for the poor in Africa

13. The first plenary session covered the lectures on natural resources/Biodiversity; industry; energy; biotrade and intellectual property; Health and biosafety; food security.

(a) Natural Resources/Biodiversity, Industry, Energy Biotrade and IP

(i) Natural Resources/Biodiversity

14. The presenters for the sub-session on Natural resources/Biodiversity were Profs. Olembo, Wambebe, Agbo and Drs. Obukosia, and Gueye. The sub-session was chaired by Mr. Uzo Mokwunye of UNU.

15. Prof. Wambebe, who spoke on ensuring proper exploitation and effective protection of natural resources and biodiversity, highlighted the following issues.

· There is a high dependence on natural resources for livelihoods in Africa; therefore, biodiversity loss is a serious concern.
· The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognizes the benefits that can be derived from biodiversity but some biological diversity are threatened by land use practices including cultivation.
· Over 33% of orthodox medicines and about 43% of the 150 top prescription medicines in the USA originate from bio-resources.
· The need to develop a Standardized African Traditional Medicine (STAM) framework and provided the steps for doing so.
· Investment opportunities for the development of medicinal plant species and formulations of herbal medicines for the management of some priority diseases.

16. Prof. Wambebe suggested the promotion of some of the investment opportunities such as the commercial cultivation, marketing, etc. of medicinal plants in member states.

(ii) Industry

18. Dr. Lewanika spoke on enhancing capacity for industrial development and noted that agriculture is the basis for industrial growth in Africa. This point was illustrated with an example from Zambia where raw molasses is exported without value addition yet Zambia could produce citric acid from molasses through the application of fermentation technology. The presenter noted that this technology exists in all African societies; therefore, efforts should be directed to improving it.

19. Noting that less emphasis is placed on applied research in Africa, the presenter however, pointed out that investment in basic research is equally important. Dr. Lewanika further advised that the technologies transferred into Africa must be suitable for the needs of the African people. The presenter called for the establishment of an African biotechnology agenda to guide the development of the technology in member states.

20. Dr. Obukosia made the second presentation on the same topic. He gave the seven basic fields of research in modern biotechnology. These are genomic, bioinformatics, proteomics, marker-assisted selection, molecular diagnotics molecular immunology and genetic transformation.

21. He mentioned the USA and China as examples of biotechnology-related success stories in advanced and less advanced country, respectively in biotechnology. He attributed the main engine of success in the US and China to government’s funding and creation of a policy framework that was conducive to the establishment of small and large biotechnology industries and a dynamic public/private sector partnership. The specific incentives included:

· Steady increase in funding for basic research;
· Accelerated processes for approving new medicines to make them available as quickly and safety as possible;
· Encouragement of private sector research investment and small business investments through tax incentives;
· Promotion of intellectual property protection and open international markets for biotechnology innovations and products;
· Development of public databases that enabled scientists to coordinate their efforts in a partnership among university-based researchers, government and private; industry;

22. He outlined the status of biotechnology in Africa and indicated that, although biotechnology can help alleviate African poverty, there is need for other policies to complete the task.

23. Dr. Abukosia urged Governments to:

· Create enabling environment for biotechnology R& D;
· Give political support and will;
· Offer tax incentives to stimulate public institutions/private sector partnership
· Legalize biosafety regulations and IPRs;
· Allocate substantial budget to biotechnology R&D;
· Ensure reliable market and its information to poor farmers; and
· Control corruption and promote accountability.

24. Dr. Abukosia tasked ECA-Biotechnology Programme to:

· Provide funds for biotechnology R&D;
· Provide funds for NGOs, eg. BTA, ABSF to expand their current roles in biotechnology;
· Ensure the participation of resource poor in programs; and
· Establish North-South linkages.

(iii) Energy

25. Prof. N’Zi Georges Agbo, speaking on developing and utilizing bio-energy, argued that there are different interpretations of the concept of biotechnology in Africa, which influences the way biotechnology research and application are undertaken in different countries on the continent. He cited a number of national institutions and programmes throughout Africa to illustrate the point.

26. Prof. Agbo pointed out that biogas is the major bio-energy product in Africa but the insufficient supply of raw materials has limited its wide-scale production and utilization. The suggested solution to remedy the situation is the application of biotechnology for the production of renewable energy resources. The production of alcohol from traditional food crops such as cassava, yams, etc. is also a viable alternative.

27. Noting that the acceptance of biogas as a domestic fuel is low in some communities because of cultural prohibition, Prof Agbo suggested training, awareness creation and extension as some of the approaches needed to promote the use of biogas. There is also need for financial support, infrastructure development and acquisition of appropriate equipment for research and development of bio-energies.

(iv) Biotrade and intellectual property

28. Addressing issues of bio-trade and intellectual property (IP), Prof. Norah Olembo provided a summary of IP systems. She said that patents and trademarks are the most widely used. She also said that although biotechnology has had significant impact on trade over the past two decades, little of this impact had been in Africa. Private companies and universities outside Africa have been active in pioneering the progress seen today.

29. She mentioned a remarkable development where institutions are partnering with companies and even setting up their own companies. The usually highly skewed patented products in favour of industrialized countries was discussed and ARIPO’s contribution to help Africa was cited. She gave an instance where the number of patents issued by US in 2000 alone stood at 17,664 with biotechnology related ones being 6,219 while patent applications filed in Kenya between 1990 and 2002 were only 360 with 4 in biotechnology.

30. Prof. Olembo indicated that IP restrictions exist in the area of HIV/AIDS medication but a large number of non-patented drugs still exist. She suggested that local companies take advantage of these opportunities. She informed participants that trademarks are easier to register than patents and pointed out that this has assisted in the registration of traditional medicines in Kenya.

31. The presenter highlighted some constraints to technology transfer to Africa. These are high cost of IP, low capacity, bad publicity and lack of awareness. She proposed the establishment of IP management offices in institutions to demystify and promote biotechnology efforts in African countries. This can only be achieved if recommendations and initiatives from past and current conferences and workshops are implemented.

32. In Concluding, Prof. Olembo urged African governments to:

· Improve biotechnology capacity in Africa;
· Encourage public awareness on the benefits and safe use of biotechnology;
· Develop policies for intellectual property protection and biosafety and enforce them;
· Stimulate exploitation of genetic resources to benefit Africa;
· Establish offices of IP management in institutions to facilitate transfer of technology;
· Demystify biotechnology by making available the right information to the public;
· Encourage bioprospecting;
· Encourage partnership between the private sector and research and development institutions.

(v) Discussions

33. In the ensuing discussions, the meeting asserted that:

· The knowledge accumulated so far on biotechnology must be converted into products that can contribute to the eradication of poverty in Africa. ECA was called upon to facilitate implementation of this goal.

· Africa must ensure that the rural poor profit from global biodiversity benefits; however, this must be within the framework of the international agreements to which the African states are parties. It is necessary to translate these agreements into local laws if the poor are also to benefit.

· The role of the local private sector is critical to the successful implementation of biotechnology programmes in Africa. So far, the private sector is the missing link in Africa’s efforts towards acquisition of biotechnology.

· Africa needs to embrace a new type of training and capacity development if it is to benefit from biotechnology. It is also essential to ensure that Africa does not become a dependent partner in its efforts to acquire biotechnology.

· It is vital to raise the status of African traditional medicine. Scientists were urged to work together with governments and the private sector, where breakthroughs have been made, to promote herbal medicines for the management of priority diseases.

(b) Health and biosafety

(i) Presentation

34. The sub-session on health and biosafety was chaired by Prof. Mike Burridge of University of Florida. Presenters were Professor Vincent Titanji of University of BUEA (Cameroon), Dr. Suman Mahan of University of Florida, Professor John Dame of University of Florida and Professor Walter Alhassan of IITA, Ibadan, (Nigeria). The first three presenters dwelt on the subject of biotechnology and health, while Professor Walter Alhassan’s presentation was centred on biotechnology and biosafety.

35. In his presentation, Prof. V. Titanji indicated that biotechnology has been responsible for great advances in human health, agriculture and the environment. The greatest advances of biotechnology have been in the area of human health with the production of a new generation of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutic products. He added that despite its achievements, biotechnology has generated a lot of controversy in the public debate. Whilst optimists see biotechnology as a solution, others are more concerned by its potential devastating consequences such as human cloning and bio-terrorism.

36. Focusing on Africa’s health problems, including killer diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS, he asserted that biotechnology can help fight these diseases through the development of diagnostic tools, vaccines and new therapies. He cited gene probes, and monoclonal anti-bodies as examples of technologies that are used in diagnosis and therapy of diseases of man, animals and plants. These technologies, he said, can be developed and targeted at diseases of interest to Africa. Regarding plant derived medicines, he said that most Africans continue to rely on plants as their source of medicine against a variety of ailments. Africa’s flora represents a rich resource that can be used for therapy against many devastating diseases. Various departments of medicine and pharmacology in Africa should work together on establishing a large database of characterised plant products so as to develop pharmaceuticals that will benefit the continent.

37. On the way forward, Professor Titanji called for the establishment of capacity building programmes with training packages that are designed to enable beneficiaries operate in an industrial setting. Unless human and material resources are developed, it will be impossible for African countries to fully benefit from the advances in biotechnology. Several lines of action should be envisaged including strengthening existing centres, running workshops and other training programmes. The final objective of capacity building should aim at enabling Africans to produce some of their required goods and not just to be passive users of biotechnological products. At the same time biotechnology research in Africa should address the needs of the continent and aim at rendering Africa increasingly self-sufficient in the production of health care products. He said that simple, sensitive, specific, affordable diagnostic methods are still needed to fight diseases which are endemic to Africa. Priority should be given to methods that can easily be used in the rural areas of Africa with limited laboratory facilities. Research should also pay attention to biotechnology reagents, to development of vaccines and plant-derived medicines. He ended his presentation on an optimistic note by asserting that resources exist in Africa to make biotechnology find antidotes for the endemic diseases of Africa. He concluded by saying that lthough biotechnology is not a panacea, it is a vital asset that cannot be ignored in any successful health care scheme.

38. Dr. Mahan’s presentation was on biotechnology applications in animal health and production. He stressed the importance of biotechnology in understanding the epidemilogy and diagnosis of diseases, and in the production of vaccines for the control of these diseases.

39. The diagnosis and control of diseases can be done through corrective or preventive management, but preferably through the latter. In the area of animal health, biotechnology can be useful in the improvement of disease prevention through the development of new user-friendly vaccines that promote longer cross-immunity and are thermostable. He said that biotechnology has helped in the development of recombinant vaccines with many advantages over conventional technology, and has been applied to develop new and improved diagnostic assays which are cheap, rapid, sensitive and strain specific. In concluding, he cautioned that it is important to ensure that new biotechnologies that are developed are sustainable, acceptable, accessible and affordable to the producers.

40. Professor Dame presented some gloomy statistics on malaria which is endemic to Africa. The alarming aspect is that while this disease causes two million deaths in Africa every year, no vaccine has been developed against it. There are two main ways to combat malaria. These consist in (i) controlling it through the development of new drugs, and (ii) to prevent it through development and use of vaccines.

41. Professor Dame provided a description of the life cycle of the malarial parasite (plasmodium falciparum) in man. He gave an account of the plasmodium falciparum genome sequencing tag project currently being undertaken at University of Florida. The rationale for the project is that knowledge of the sequence, the identity and the genomic location of the structural genes of the pathogen will expedite efforts to identify new approaches towards prevention and cure. Therefore, in identifying genes and their function, potential anti-malarial drug targets and vaccine candidates can be identified. He described the technique used and referred to it as rapid and cost-effective. He then stated that either researchers consider malaria as a health problem or an academic issue, they should use biotechnology in sustainable research and applications to combat it. In concluding, he said that University of Florida intends to build on the project and would involve other interested researchers including those in Africa. The project would also provide for training, among others.

42. Dr. Alhassan began his presentation by comparing traditional biotechnology and modern biotechnology. The traditional or classical biotechnology has served and continues to contribute to mankind’s socio-economic development needs. However, modern biotechnology is revolutionalising agriculture, health, industrial and environmental recovery processes. However, in the midst of these benefits are potential risks associated with the use of biotechnology. The application of Biosafety principles, he said, serves to minimise the risks. He cited Agenda 21 and the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted at the 1992 Rio Summit and its Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety as international instruments that address biosafety issues.

43. He examined the status of adoption of biosafety frameworks and laws across the various sub-regions of Africa and concluded that most African countries have signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety but have not yet ratified it. Neither have they developed framework laws for the implementation of these international instruments. He emphasized the importance of ratifying these instruments to be able to source Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. Framework laws and regulations need to be in place to provide a regulated environment for the conduct of biotechnology research, which have biosafety implications. However, he said that for the success of legislation implementation, other factors such as human resources, laboratory infrastructure and funds for routine administrative work are necessary.

44. He indicated that it is essential that African countries develop their biosafety frameworks and laws and be able to implement the legislation. This will enhance research competence through linkage with institutions that have advanced technologies to solve local problems requiring the use of genetic engineering. He called for the modification and adoption of the OAU model law on Biosafety to suit specific country situations that should also facilitate the harmonisation of biosafety laws across African countries. In concluding, however, he opined that the absence of biosafety laws should not halt progress in biotechnology in Africa, as there are numerous biotechnology related products crucial to socio-economic development that do not require biosafety legislation.

(ii) Discussions

45. After the presentations, the following comments and/or observations were made.

46. The issue was raised as to whether African research centres should agree to joint research on testing transgenic plants in the absence of biosafety laws. It was agreed that African centres should be advised not to venture into that area of research until a law is in place in their countries. It was then agreed that once a framework law is drafted and the mechanism for its adoption put in place, countries could start implementing it. Responsible parties can embark upon awareness creation and implementation can start within the framework of approved guidelines.

47. A concern was expressed about the gap between the period farmers become aware of biotechnology products and the time it takes scientists and administrators to act. This gap can cause problems in some African countries. It was stressed that concerned parties including legislators should put in place the requisite structures to enable farmers benefit from biotechnology advances. It was further agreed that legislators should be sensitized so that they understand that research in biotechnology is not only of scientific interest but is indeed important for Africa’s socio-economic development.

48. Another expert outlined progress made on the development, implementation and establishment of Biosafety laws and institutions in his country, which he said has enabled the country to carry out biotechnology research with Biosafety implications under regulated conditions. He called on experts to assist in drafting and finalising biosafety laws and sensitize legislators to adopt these laws. The point was strongly made that it is critically important that all countries have the necessary laws and institutions in place in order for Africa to make headway in biotechnology research.

49. In closing the session, the Chairperson concluded that the conduct of field tests, which is so important in validating biotechnology products such as DNA vaccines, can only be done when the relevant legislation is in place. Therefore, he reiterated the call for all countries to pass their Biosafety laws.

(c) Food Security

50. Dr. Mugabe, the UNU/INRA lecturer, made a presentation on “Utilizing biotechnology to promote food security”. He informed the meeting that no single factor is sufficient to explain the state of food insecurity in Africa. The causes of poor agricultural production and food insecurity on the continent are many, complex and interrelated. Solving food insecurity problems in Africa will require a regime of technological and non-technological measures.

51. He pointed out that biotechnology by itself will not change the picture of food security in Africa. The most important thing is how biotechnology is going to be applied targeting plants and crops that can be used in specific environmental and cultural context. For biotechnology to make a difference in Africa, experts must target specific needs, specific products in specific socio-economic contexts.

52. Africa has responsibilities to monitor the possible risks associated with biotechnology. Public perception is very important in this regard. Biotechnology has to be relevant and specific to the environment in which it is to be used. Technology is not neutral and needs to be adapted to a specific context. Biotechnology also needs to be analysed together with other technologies such as information technologies. The improvement of education and institutional infrastructure is basic to the capacity building for biotechnology. Further, the cultural system in which the biotechnology is to be used must be taken into account.

53. In his view, African countries lack strategic use of their resources and a specific action plan targeting specific needs and products must be taken. He said that countries need a strong R & D sector in charge of risk assessments in relation to the use of biotechnology. The development of biosafety laws in Africa has to be accompanied by the establishment of a national R&D in biotechnology.

54. Dr. Mugabe suggested that constituency building be promoted targeting a large number of experts in the field of biotechnology. He also suggested that countries should create a scientific community instead of promoting individual researchers. Countries should give priority to the creation of public constituencies for biotechnology. This would increase public awareness and support specific demand for biotechnology products. He called for public perception assessments to understand how the public perceives biotechnology products and how it reacts to their introduction in the market. He also called on African countries to improve policy-makers awareness in the area of biotechnology.

55. He underscored the importance of technology needs assessment while considering the use of biotechnology. He said that experts should help assess the existing technologies and the needs for new technologies in order to solve food insecurity in Africa. He advised countries must identify their needs in terms of human resources. He indicated that NEPAD includes the creation of centres of Excellencies in Africa and one of these should be dedicated to biotechnology.

56. In conclusion, Dr. Mugabe said that biotechnology has great potential for Africa if appropriately used. The scientific communities must be mobilised at the national and regional levels. The continent must prepare itself through capacity-building measures in research, industry, and biosafety regulations. The private sector should also be involved.

57. Prof. Joseph Wekundah, who presented a paper on “Increasing food and agricultural productivity”, indicated that an estimated 790 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have no access to adequate food. He said that African agriculture is not capital intensive, utilizes very little fertiliser, and is largely rain-fed with only 4.1 percent of irrigated arable land. He also said that this sector is characterised by unstastainable practices, poor investment in research, low technology application, poor infratructure, limited empowerment of farmers, unfair global trade and environmental degradation.

58. He explained that Africa missed the green revolution because of lack of dialogue and consensus building between the different key actors who are researchers, farmers and policy makers. He stressed that the continent must follow and understand the trends in biotechnology development if it does not want to miss the gene revolution. He told the meeting that indicators for the next 5-10 years show that the development of the key sectors of any national economy will rely to a great extent on biotechnology. Among these sectors are agriculture, health and industry. He said that Africa must involve end-users in the development of products derived from biotechnology. He illustrated the potential advantages of biotechnology in agriculture production using the Kenyan experiences and the use of Bt cotton production in South Africa. He indicated that biotechnology can create tremendous opportunities in enhanced breeding for disease and pest resistant crop varieties that are tolerant to abiotic stress. It could also lead to the creation of rapid multiplication of disease-free planting materials and development of high quality food products and livestock vaccines.

59. He concluded his presentation by stating that the role of biotechnology in improving farming systems, yields and household income is clearly demonstrated. He said that although biotechnology is not a panacea for food security, it has great potential for poverty alleviation, farm productivity increase and hunger eradication. He stressed that the issue is how to accept biotechnology and develop it in Africa so as to allow countries benefit from it and address any negative impacts it may cause. He finally urged the ECA to partner with other agencies or institutions for the promotion and expansion of biotechnology in Africa.

D. Second Plenary Session

Sub-Regional Progress Report on Biotechnology Development and application

60. Dr. Florence Wambugu chaired the session on sub-regional progress report on biotechnology development and application in the sub-region of CORAF, ASARECA and SADC.

(a) CORAF Sub-region

61. Biotechnology activities in CORAF sub-region were presented by Dr. Harold Roy Maccauley, Prof. C.P.E. Omaliko, Dr. Sangaré abdourahmane and Dr. Mamadou Gueye. Dr. Harold Roy informed the participant that CORAF was established in 1987 and regrouped 24 member States from western and central Africa. Its objective is building synergy and pooling resources among its member states in order to achieve food security and sustainable development in the sub-region through the development of common agricultural research programmes.

62. He pointed out that most of the 24 State members of CORAF are among the poorest countries of the world. He said that one of the major development challenges facing the sub-region is a persistent food deficit. In order to meet the food needs, food production should grow by at least 4 percent per year and the rate of population growth maintained under the current rate of 3 percent.

63. In response to the food insecurity in the sub-region, CORAF has been assisting member countries in setting up their research priority, developing new strategic plan for agricultural research. He said biotechnology is seen as a tool for realizing the objective of agricultural production in the area.

64. Regarding the status of biotechnology, he noted that very few countries have set up their bio-safety regulation, which is a major constraint to the development and application of biotechnology in the sub-region. Other major constraints includes limited financial resources, lack of laboratory, inadequate capacities, low level of awareness among the population, etc. He also said that there is an ongoing study on the state of biotechnology development in the sub-region that will identify gaps, needs and prepare a plan of action.

65. In conclusion, Dr. Roy-Maccauley indicated that the development of biotechnology in the CORAF sub-region requires capacity building particularly in the area of training of a critical mass of researchers, raising awareness among policymakers and the population, promoting networking and establishing centers of excellence.

66. Dr. Omaliko pointed out that, in Nigeria, there is a strong political support from the president for the development of Biotechnology. A National committee has been established to develop national policy on biotechnology. The objective of the committee is to ensure that Nigeria becomes one of the leading countries in biotechnology development. A National Biotechnology Development Agency has been created which deals with all economic sectors. The priority areas of this agency are advocacy, capacity building, promotion of small entrepreneurship, establishment of clearing house, bio-information (database), promotion of collaboration between various stakeholders within the country, and networking within the sub-region.

67. Dr. Sangaré presented the situation of biotechnology development and application in Côte d’Ivoire. He said that two University Centers as well as the National Center for Agricultural Research (NCAR) are involved in biotechnology development. The NCAR areas of focus include plant breeding, phytopathology, and plant reproduction.

68. Dr. Mamadou Gueye made a presentation on the activities of Microbiology Resource Centers (MIRCEN) in Africa, which are sponsored by UNESCO. He said that three MIRENs are found on the continent and are located in Dakar, Nairobi, and Cairo.

69. The activities of MIREN/Dakar focus on rhizobium culture collection. They are working on over 600 rhizobium strains. The rhizobium has the capacity to fix nitrogen in the soil. The objective of the programme is to select the best fixing varieties that can be used to improve soil fertility using biotechnology.

70. Dr. Gueye also mentioned the creation of the African Agency of Biotechnology (AAB) which has already mobilized resources from the Arab Banks. The objective of the AAB is to assist African countries in the formulation of their biotechnology policies and programmes, and coordinate regional and sub-regional activities in biotechnology. The headquarters of the Agency is in Algiers. He also raised the issue of potential duplication between ECA Biotechnology Programme and that of AAB. He hinted that AAB might be the implanting agency of the NEPAD programme on Biotechnology.

(b) ASARECA Sub-region

71. Dr. Florence Wambugu, Dr Tilahun Zeweldu of Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), and Dr Christopher Ngichabe of ASARECA were the presenters of report on biotechnology development and application in ASARECA sub-region.

72. Dr. Wambugu told the meeting that the key to food security in Africa is empowerment of African people with the access to information and technologies that can allow them to rise above their current food insecurity status. She said that biotechnology has the power to fight hunger and poverty in Africa if it is targeted to specific African problems.
72. She informed the participants that “A Harvest Biotech Foundation International” was established in 2002 for the safe and effective use of agricultural biotechnology in Africa and other developing countries. The Foundation aims to improve food security, reduce hunger and malnutrition and alleviate poverty while protecting the environment. The foundation’s mission is to remove barriers that prevent countries from benefiting from biotechnology for food security and from entering the global biotechnology trade.

73. Dr. Wambugu also informed the meeting that the underlying barriers are many and must be overcome if the full potential of agricultural biotechnology is to be realised in Africa. She said that, apart from South Africa and Egypt, African countries do not have capacity to conduct research and development in GM-crops biotechnology. Some of the countries even lack functional conventional breeding programmes for crops that are critical to food security. Government regulatory systems for ensuring the safety of biotech products, especially GM crops, are often inefficient and sometimes non-existent. Public sector extension services are poor in most African countries, which is a major constraint to technology adoption by farmers. Pragmatic approaches to the public extension services, such as participatory rural appraisal schemes at the farm and community levels, are underutilized. There is a lack of expertise in the North to implement biotech innovations in the African context of sustainable development. Activities of anti-GM crops and groups, especially from Europe, have had profound effects on Africa. The campaign of these groups has slowed down technology transfer and threatens to obliterate the potential benefits to food security in Africa. Other constraints include the many conflicting international agreements such as that which is related to WTO and Cartegena Protocol, the traceability and the labeling of GM products. Treaceability can only be achieved through a very well organized and functioning food system which Africa does not have. Labeling is impractical in the continent where agricultural products are sold in open-air and where economies of scale needed to reduce the costs of the process cannot be easily achieved.

74. Dr. Wambugu indicated that despite the above barriers, some achievements can be reported in Africa. She said that in the 1990s, the Internal Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) used several tools of biotechnology to combat maize streak virus (MSV) responsible for the streaking effect and stunted growth and very often death of the growing maize plants in Kenya. A new material is available for testing and Kenya’s small-scale maize farmers have already received this material for on-farm testing.

75. During the same decade, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), has developed several GM sweet potato varieties with gene resistant to sweet potato feathery mottle virus (SPFMV). The resistant plants were then micro-propagated, disease-free, using tissue culture technology, for more widespread testing and distribution to the farmers. The distribution system to small-scale farmers has already been developed with great success in fighting hunger and poverty in the country.

76. Dr. Wambugu urged Africa to focus on trade in both international and local markets in order to diminish the importance of European trade barriers to agricultural production decisions on the continent. African countries, in this regard, must have strategic alliances among themselves and with countries of the South such as China and India. In other words, African countries need to improve their networking within the continent and strengthen collaboration with countries outside Africa.

77. She also recommended that grassroots organizations such as ABSF and AfricaBio be strengthened. These organizations not only understand the context in which they work but the natural environment and the needs of the poor. She further recommended a continuous environmental testing in order to alleviate the controversies associated with GM products. She urged governments to show national commitment to biotechnology and translate this commitment into concrete actions by performing need assessments and put in place biosafety regulations. The public sector must also build biotechnology capacity including the development of the necessary infrastructure.

78. Dr. Wambugu finally called for the development and involvement of local knowledge and expertise, the strengthening of local institutions and of local private sector.

79. Dr. Zeweldu highlighted, among others, the biotechnology policy framework, research programmes and institutional support, and achievements in Ethiopia. He said that a draft national biotechnology policy and strategy has recently been developed through the participation of different public institutions and the coordination of the Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission. The draft, which will deal with bio-safety and IPR laws and guidelines in the future, has already been submitted to the government for approval. However, no such laws and guidelines has yet been released and Ethiopia remains without bio-safety and IPR framework.

80. He informed the meeting that, currently, there is no specialized biotechnology research institution and national biotechnology research program in Ethiopia. The only recent development is that Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) has developed a twenty-year strategic plan for biotechnology development and established research coordination office at its headquarters. He said that a number of institutions, however, use biotechnology tools in their research activities. Depending on the strength of their programs, some of these institutions have considerable manpower and laboratory infrastructure which could be used as the basis for strengthening biotechnology R & D in the country.

81. The EARO has recently institutionalised agricultural biotechnology research and plans to establish Agriculture Biotechnology Research Institute (ABRI) at Holetta Research Centre that will cater for plant, microbial and animal biotechnology R & D. EARO has also identified biotechnology research problems, set priorities, formulated programs and projects. Its twenty-year implementation strategy encompasses short, medium and long-term plans. Further, EARO has identified major problems in plant, microbial and animal biotechnology research. In the area of plant biotechnology, the short-term focus will be on the application of tissue culture techniques for quantitative and qualitative improvement of coffee, banana, citrus, potato, spices, essential oil bearing plans, medical plants, rubber trees, and oil palm trees.

82. Dr. Zeweldu told the meeting that Ethiopia does not have a focal institution specialized in industrial research neither does it have a strong national health research institution or program. The country has an Environment Protection Authority whose responsibility is regulatory in nature. There is no strong program on environment research and biotechnology application to environment. There are only fragmented and poorly coordinated research activities that may use biotechnology tools in the areas related to environment.

83. He called for the establishment in Ethiopia f a “National Biotechnology Research Council (NBRC)”in which major ministries should be represented. He also called for the creation of a “Biotechnology Science Advisory Board (BSAB) whose members should be scientists from national research and higher learning institutes.

84. Dr C. Ngichabe informed the meeting that ASARECA (Association For Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa) is a non-profit, non-political sub-Regional Organization for the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in ten Eastern and Central African countries. Member NARS include those from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. ASARECA is governed by a Committee of Directors (CD) that oversees its activities and provides policy guidance. The CD comprises of the ten Director Generals of the 10 NARS and one university representative. ASARECA has a Secretariat that services the CD, the regional Networks, programmes and projects. ASARECA together with the other two sub-regional organizations, SACAR (for Southern Africa) and CORAF (for West Africa) form the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA).

85. He also informed the meeting that, in order to develop a biotechnology and biosafety initiative for the sub-region, the CD established a Working Group with a mandate to consider and develop a suitable program. The Working Group is composed of ten members (one from each ASARECA member country), and is supported by a Coordinator and the ASARECA secretariat. The working group was asked to conduct a broader dialogue among stakeholders; identify the major thrusts and objectives of the programme and develop a fundable project proposal.

86. Elaborating on the achievements of the Working group, Dr Ngichabe said that this group commissioned two consultancy reports, one on biotechnology and the other on biosafety. The biotechnology report identified priorities for biotechnology agricultural research and opportunities for strategic partnerships with advanced research institutions. Based on the report and additional stakeholder input, the working group identified biotechnology interventions that would address the main production constraints for priority crop and livestock commodities. The second report outlined the current status of biosafety in the sub-region, biosafety regulatory mechanisms and the feasibility for a sub-regional biosafety approach.

87. In consultation with the stakeholders, the Working Group used the reports to develop a proposal to request funding for a biotechnology and biosafety program for the ECA countries.

88. Speaking of that the ASARECA Biotechnology and Biosafety. Programme, Dr Ngichabe told the meeting that this programme will support the existing ASARECA crop and livestock networks, but will encourage strong linkages and partnerships with other international, regional, sub-regional and national biotechnology/biosafety initiatives. The proposed programme will address the development objectives of the ECA countries by initiating a broad spectrum of biotechnology R&D projects supported by extensive biosafety capacity building. The programme components comprises short, medium and long-term initiatives that will allow rapid technology transfer of existing technologies and long-term development of regionally important biotechnology products. The biosafety component of the program will provide a sub-regional biosafety support center (RBSC). The RBSC will link the national biosafety focal points (NBFs) of member countries, provide a process for regional review of GMO applications and will coordinate training and information exchange among ASARECA partners and stakeholders. In addition the center will coordinate biosafety template development for laboratory work, greenhouse testing, clinical trials, field trials, commercial release and commodity imports. This center will also enable participation in regional biosafety policy dialogue. These components are packaged to deliver independent results in a coordinated manner to accomplish a common purpose. In this way funding can be flexible to accommodate both donors and collaborating partnerships.

89. Dr Ngichabe conluded by saying that ASARECA Biotechnology and Biosafety programme will endeavor to ensure the safe application of biotechnology for enhanced and sustainable productivity, competitiveness and value added agricultural systems.

90. During the debate that followed the three presentations, participants discussed, among other issues, regional safety review, collaboration with foreign biotechnology companies, and the usefulness of a biotechnology centre of excellence in Africa.

91. Experts were of the view that a regional safety review can be a cumbersome and long task. They called for mechanisms to speed up the political and technical review processes since the time imposed for the review at the international level is usually short. For example, the period required by the Cartegena Protocol for the review is 90 days, which calls for the establishment of a pool of experts ready to perform the technical review in a short period of time. Experts said that shortening the period of technical review would make up for the long duration often required to complete the political decision making process. They insisted that the political review must come after the technical review. They finally called for respect of confidentiality in the review process.

92. The experts were also of the view that biosafety issues must be considered and resolved before collaboration in biotechnology research with outside companies is effected. They said that because biotechnology is such an area of great interests, biosafety regulations are basic to ensure that African research centres are not manipulated by outside companies.

93. As far as the creation of a centre of excellence dedicated to biotechnology in Africa is concerned, many experts urged African countries not to wait for the creation of such a centre. They insisted that work in the field of biotechnology has already started and should go on and that the establishment of a big African centre of excellence could result in the creation of a white elephant that would absorb most of the funds available for biotechnology research and development on the continent. They called for the strengthening of some research centres such as ILRI and ICIPE which already exist in Africa, and their transformation into centres of excellence for biotechnology in Africa. They also called upon experts to lobby for the creation and strengthening of small centres in African countries with expertise in specific products such as rice, cassava or maize. They further called upon African countries to create a local expertise in the field of biotechnology in order to avoid the situation where the continent could miss the biotechnology revolution and all its related benefits.

(c) SADC Sub-region

94. Professor Chetsanga of the Scientific and Industrial Research and Development Centre (SIRDC) of Zimbabwe and Dr Wakusama of the Internal Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotechnology Applications (ISAAA) were the presenters of biotechnology activities in the SADC sub-region.

95. Prof. Chetsanga informed the participants that Zimbabwe established SIRDC in 1993. The center has mandate to engage in technological innovation, upgrade the quality of existing products and carry out technology transfer. SIRDC has seven institutes including the “Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI)”. Areas of emphasis of BRI are agricultural biotechnology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, and food processing biotechnology. Prof. Chetsanga also informed the participants that of all the biotechnology activities in Africa, 70 per cent are in agricultural biotechnology, 20 per cent in medical biotechnology and 10 per cent in industrial biotechnology. He said that the focus in Zimbabwe follows a similar pattern.

96. In highlighting the great potential of biotechnology for Africa, he indicated that biotechnology can, among others, help the continent achieve an enhanced application of micro-propagation for the provision of disease free seedlings for forestry, fruit trees and food crops. He added that micro-propagation is best known to be simple and has been most popularly applied to tubers of cassava, sweet potato and strawberry.

97. He said that BRI has a strong programme of maize research with focus on the development of a drought tolerant variety through selection involving adaptation to abiotic stress. He also said that the drought resistance work is advanced and is nearing completion and that a companion programme is underway to adapt maize to biotic stress, in particular in the area of insect resistance. Also well advanced, he indicated, is the micro-propagation of sweet potato. Mushroom culturing and silkworm growth projects are being expanded to rural communities. The production of mushroom spawn by BRI for these communities who are growing mushrooms for food and commercial purposes has become a very popular scheme. Other projects on the development of orchards of indigenous fruit trees using micro-propagation, and the production of jams and beverages from indigenous fruits are being implemented.

98. Professor Chetsanga told the meeting that biotechnologies developed by BRI have acquired national popularity through biotechnology extension services to rural communities. He also told the meeting that part of the negative attitudes to biotechnology is based on the fear of presumed danger thought to be associated with it and said that a sustainable programme in biotechnology requires adequate precautions that safeguard the safety of human life and environment.

99. Prof Chetsanga finally underscored the critical importance of risk assessment in biotechnology and biosafety regulations. He informed the meeting that biosafety provisions have been enshrined in an act of parliament that provides for a Biosafety Board in Zimbabwe. This Board inspects all laboratories engaged in gene cloning and certifies their state of compliance with biosafety regulations.

100. Dr. Wakhusama informed the meeting that the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotechnology Application (ISAAA) has mandate to transfer agricultural biotechnology from industrialized countries and private sector to developing countries. ISSAA seeks to reduce poverty; foster sustainable farming practices; preserve biodiversity in agriculture and forestry and contribute to a safer global environment.

101. The strategy used by ISAAA in proprietary agri-biotech for the benefit of the poor in developing countries comprises focusing on the development of model projects that can facilitate the delivery as well as the safe and effective introduction of near-term agri-biotech applications that have already been tested in industrialised and developing countries. The main elements of the strategy are (a) an emphasis, based on needs assessments of the target community, on applications that increase the productivity and/or nutrition of food crops particularly orphan commodities grown by resource-poor farmers and that contribute to sustainable agriculture and a safer environment, (b) concentration on three classes of crop biotechnology applications, namely tissue culture, diagnostics, and selection makers and transgenic crops, and (c) assigning priority to assessments of benefits and constraints of biotechnology in developing countries, including biosafety and food safety considerations as well as intellectual property rights, the responsible deployment of resistance genes to optimize durability, and issues of the potential impact of such technology transfers were highlighted. These examples were drawn from ex-ante studies on tissue culture banana and transgenic sweet potato projects in Kenya as well as from the transgenic potato project in Mexico.

102. Recognising that human capital is the most important factors for sustainable and successful projects, ISAAA sponsors a strong fellowship training programme. To date, ISAAA has arranged mid-career training for 45 scientists from 12 countries in tissue culture, transformation, regeneration, diagnostics and molecular biology. Unlike traditional training programmes, wich have usually involved the public sector in industrialized countries, a noteworthy feature of the ISAAA Fellowship Program is that most of the project-specific, and hands-on training has been undertaken with private sector corporations rather than with the public sector.

103. For projects that involve genetically engineered plants, ISAAA ensures that products are tested and introduced in a safe and effective way, and preferably in harmony with existing biosafety regulations in industrialized countries. For all projects involving genetically engineered plants, ISAAA provides information to clients on safe testing and introduction. Tests must comply with all existing biosafety regulations, and ISAAA provides for capacity building in countries lacking regulations.

104. ISAAA, in the earlier stages, invested significant resources in building the capacity for regulatory oversight in developing countries. It organized, from 1992 to 1998, six major biosafety workshops for over 300 regulators, policy makers and scientists in Costa Rica, Argentina, Indonesia, Kenya and Malaysia. The workshops involved regulation specialists from approximately 25 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

105. Food safety is also a critical and strategic area where ISAAA has working links with experienced institutions that can provide appropriate information and guidance. This demand for this service is expected to increase as national programmes develop their own genetically modified crops and market food products derived from them.

106. Recognizing that ISAAA’s biotechnology transfer activities almost invariably require the resolution of intellectual property (IP) and ownership issues (even when a public sector entity wishes to donate technology to developing countries), it launched a Global IP/TT Initiative.

107. In the area of information and knowledge sharing, ISAAA assigns high priority to the generation, publication and distribution of authoritative information and knowledge on crop biotechnology. In order to make this information and knowledge widely available, all electronic information and publications are provided free of charge to developing countries.

108. Dr. Wakhusama presented a portfolio of ISAAA agri-biotech project transfers. These are commercial tissue culture technology for banana in Kenya, diagnostic kits for maize streak virus in Kenya and other Sub-Saharan African countries, tissue culture, tree clonal technology in Kenya and Uganda (for multi-purpose trees for family needs) cp-gene viral resistance and SPFMV for sweet potato in Kenya.

109. Dr Wakhusama finally said that examples from ISAAA-facilitated projects worldwide have shown that participatory approaches by all stakeholders in needs assessments, use of multidisciplinary teams to implement technology transfer, forging partnerships between the private and public sector and networking for information sharing can positively contribute to transfer of proprietary technology to public sector for use in developing countries. These partnerships mutually benefit both private and public sector.

E. Third Plenary Session
Outcome of Discussions in Working Groups and Recommendations Of the Meeting

110. Participants were divided into four working groups to deliberate on how UN-ECA could assist African countries develop, transfer and use biotechnology for their sustainable development. The groups deliberated on (a) ECA biotechnology programme, (b) Food and agriculture, natural resources and environment; (c) health; (d) industry and energy; biosafety and intellectual property.

(a) ECA-Biotechnology Programme Session

111. The ECA is urged to establish within its Sustainable Development Division a “ ECA biotechnology Programme for Sustainable Development of Africa” to be called ECA-Biotech.

112. The Vision of the ECA-Biotech is to make Africa a global partner in biotechnology development and application. Its Mission is to build the necessary capacity for a safe application of biotechnology that will ensure environment and biodiversity protection, sustainable food security, poverty reduction, health care, and industrial and energy development in Africa.

113. ECA-Biotech shall have a Steering Committee responsible for policy formulation for the programme; identification and prioritization of areas of biotechnology activities; budget approval; approval of competitive awards; provision of input in the development of African positions in various international fora (CBD, WIPO, WTO, etc.). The Steering Committee shall also receive and consider reports and advise in resource mobilization.

114. The Steering Committee shall have seven members. Of these members, 2 shall be from East and Central Africa, 1 from North Africa, 1 from Southern Africa, and 2 from West and Central Africa. The Steering Committee will co-opt an additional member. This additional member shall preferably a social scientist.

115. The Steering Committee shall elect a Chairperson among its members for a period one year and rotated. It will serve for three years.

116. The Steering Committee shall be advised by Ad Hoc Committees that shall be constituted as the need arises.

117. The first Steering Committee will have four of its members serve for two years. The first Steering Committee will have three of its members serve for three years.

118. An Interim Steering Committee was elected by the meeting to serve for one year. The members are Professor Chetsanga form Southern Africa, Prof. Titanji form Central Africa, Prof. Omaliko from West Africa, Dr Zeweldu from East Africa and Prof. Nzumbu from East Africa. SDD shall engage consultations for the selection of one member from North Africa.

119. ECA-Biotech shall have a Coordinator nominated by ECA. Under the overall supervision of the Director of SDD, he/she will co-ordinate all the activities of ECA-Biotech; conduct needs assessment; be in charge of monitoring and evaluation and forecast trends and developments in biotechnology. The meeting recommended that the ECA designate the Coordinator in the shortest time possible.

120. ECA-biotech shall also have two Programme Officers (one for projects and one for networking) and a Secretary. The Programme Officer-Projects will be in charge of awareness creation for technology uptake; advocacy for biotechnology; promotion of UN-ECA Biotech; follow up with both the public and private sectors; linking with the private sector; linking with the public sector; and IT facilitation. He/she will also call for and process projects. The Programme Officer-Networking will be in charge of Capacity building (human resources development, strengthening of biotechnology institutions); development of database and website; linking with regional intergovernmental organizations (Focal Points); linking with national institutions; linking with international intergovernmental organizations; and linking with virtual centers.

121. ECA-Biotech shall explore activities of biotechnology promoting organizations and add value to their activities. Intergovernmental Organisations include ASARECA, SACCA, CORAF/WECARD, ARIPO, OAPI, FARA, AAB, ARCT/CRAT, IGAD. Project oriented organizations include BIO-EARN, SARB, AfricaBio. Biotechnology related NGOs include BTZ, BTA, ABSF, HARVEST INTERNATIONAL, ISAAA, CGIAR, CABI.

(b) Food and Agriculture, Natural resources and Environment

122. The constraints preventing Africa from using biotechnology to address food security, natural resources and environment agenda are inadequate capacity in particular with regard to funding, expertise and infrastructure, limited awareness, negative publicity from Europe, weak link between R & D and users, poor exploitation of African biodiversity for food security and poverty alleviation, and weak support of networking platforms and technology transfer on the continent.

123. General recommendations were:

- ECA is to liaise with the 3 sub-regional Agricultural Research and development organizations in Africa (CORAF, ASARECA and SACCAR) in order to avoid duplication and ensure prioritization of issues and effective utilization of funds for biotechnology projects;
- ECA is to facilitate the integration of biotechnology activities in Africa within NEPAD with a view to minimizing the above-mentioned duplication and maximizing collective efforts
- ECA is to put emphasis on countries with weak biotechnology capacities in order to promote equity among countries endeavouring to share the benefit from biotechnology;
- ECA is to promote generation and sharing of knowledge and information related to biotechnology by establishing a website and strengthening information exchange within regional networks to ensure effective networking and information dissemination;
- ECA is to produce inventory documents on biotechnology by putting in place a commission of capable experts in the field;
- ECA is to promote R & D in biotechnology by playing a facilitating role in training, resource mobilization, and sharing of methodologies and expertise, awareness creation, and infrastructure building;
- ECA is to document and audit the available resources (infrastructure, human, activities and funding sources, stakeholders of biotechnology) on the continent;
- ECA is to facilitate the transfer of biotechnologies through training, material transfer, MoU, and field projects;
- ECA is to help adopt and implement the OAU, WHO and WIPO guidelines on IPR and equitable benefit sharing;
- ECA is to promote private and public partnership;

124. Specific recommendations were to:

- focus on the key intervention domains which are animal and crop improvement, soil fertility and land protection, crop and livestock protection, post harvest technology, nutrition and bio-fertilization; and
- characterize, conserve and utilize African biodiversity.

(c) Health

125. The group identified the major African health problems to be HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, malnutrition, diarrheal diseases in humans, and tick-borne diseases, trypanosomiasis and CBPP in livestock. The constraints to application of biotechnology to combat these diseases are :

- inadequate directory of current facilities and projects on Health Biotechnology in Africa;
- inadequate expertise in biotechnology especially recombinant DNA;
- “Brain drain”;
- poor infrastructure in biotechnology;
- lack of sustainable funding; and
- lack of private sector involvement.

126. General recommendations to address the problems were:

- ECA- Biotech must be sustained for at least 10 years in order to be successful;
- ECA-Biotech must address recognized, specific and urgent health needs for Africa;
- ECA-Biotech must have multi-country (Africa-wide) projects.

127. Specific recommendations were related to capacity building in the areas of acquisition of knowledge, infrastructure, and technology transfer.

(i) Specific recommendations for acquisition of knowledge include:

- retention of trained personnel;
- use of both international and African expertise for biotech training;
- training project-targeted (MS, PhD, & non-degree);
- private sector involvement in training;
- training in recombinant DNA technology, molecular diagnostics, molecular, vaccinology, and rational drug design;
- training should be at all levels i.e., graduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral, and must be accompanied by continuing education including that of technicians.

(ii) Specific recommendations on infrastructure and transfer of technologies included:

- strengthening existing facilities;
- developing sustainable programmes that provide career paths for trainees in Africa; and
- involving existing African Centers

128. Expected outcomes are:

- new vaccines, diagnostics, and medicines;
- quality nutrition;
- trained personnel;
- improved infrastructure and working environment in Africa;
- emergence of African biotech industry;
- improved health and quality of life of citizens;
- improved health of livestock;
- increased productivity and enhanced food security;
- increased trade;
- reduced Poverty.

(d) Industry and Energy

129. Biotechnology activity will lead to the establishment of industries for the production of plant and animal oils, carbohydrates, proteins, textiles, leather, wood, fermented products, insulin, hormones.

(i) Industries

130. In the food industries, problems to be solved are lack of optimization of food usage, malnutrition due to poor quality food, poor health, yeast fermentation, food wastage. Short term activities to be undertaken must be directed to increase crop production; increase food processing; education, training and awareness creation. Medium term activities are development of new, affordable, and socially acceptable methods of food processing; development of new local strains of microbes including selection and characterization; use of local species and strains of microorganisms for food and product improvement; use of starter cultures for consistency. Long term activities are optimization of private sector utilization of biotechnologies; continuous improvement of all developed processes and products and genetic engineering for new species.

131. In the textile industries the constraints include damages due to pests, poor market intelligence, poor processing activities and lack of initiatives in pattern design. For a sustainable production of textile products (cotton, wool, fabrics, silk, synthetic, and starch), short-term activities must concentrate on increasing cotton production as a raw material (Bt cotton is to be seriously considered); market analysis; processing of bags, fabrics, dyes; production of enzymes; computerizing design and patterns. Medium term activities include improvement of Bt cotton on farm, further analysis and improvement of cotton fiber quality.

132. In the leather industries, problems to be solved include pollution, un-improved supply and quality, poor product diversity, poor bioremediation and lack of market competency. Short term activities are to be directed to market analysis, leather processing, quality assurance, animal breeding and production. Medium term activities are to include improvement of leather quality and market analysis. Long-term activities are to include continuous improvement of leather quality and market analysis.

133. In the wood industries, problems to be solved include termite attacks, poor recycling, lack of high coloring charcoal & brickettes, firewood and lack of fast growing trees. Short-term actions to be taken are production of fast growing trees through micropagation, recycling of paper and packaging. Medium term activities are improvement of propagation products and market analysis. Long term actions must be directed to continuous improvement of propagation procedures and genetic engineering to improve wood quality.

134. In the fermentation industries designed to fight malnutrition, the problems to be solved include constraints related to health, high waste and poor elimination of non-nutritive agents that prevent the effective assimilation of nutrients found in food stuffs (phytic acid, flatulence factors). Short term activities are to include identifying and characterizing bio-agents in local environment, improvement of local fermentation processes, market analysis and use of by-products from breweries for other uses such as single cell proteins (SCP). Medium term actions are to be directed at the improvement of selected and identified microorganisms and market analysis. Long-term activities include continuous improvement of selected and identified microorganisms, market analysis and optimization by handing over research outcomes to the private sector.

135. In the plastic industries the problems to be solved are poor environmental management of plastics (collecting and recycling plastics) and poor product improvement (heat resistance, durability, strength, permeability). Short-term actions include production of rubber tree, fatty acids and starch, market analysis and recycling of plastics. Medium term activities must be directed at the identification of other sources of raw materials for making plastics, quantity improvement and market analysis. Long-term actions include continuous improvement of quality procedures, development of biodegradable plastics and market analysis.

136. It was emphasized that ECA must help Africa pay a particular attention to the application of biotechnology in micro-propagation for rapid multiplication of sugar cane and tree seedlings; marker assisted selection for breeding corn, sorghum, maize, fruits and screening microbes for industrial use; molecular indexing of diseases; genetic engineering to produce new strains of microorganisms, enzymes for fermentation in the manufacture of alpha-amylase and to produce insulin and hormones such as bovine somatotrophin hormone. Africa should also develop small industries, create new industries through private funding, finance new ways of food processing, storage and preservation, develop new varieties of crops for appropriate food, wood, textile, leather and plastics processing, enhance market analysis for new products development, and promote and finance training at different levels.

(e) Energy

137. Problems to be solved in the energy sector include high cost of energy, poor production of biogas and waste products, land degradation due to fuel wood utilization, poor infrastructure, lack of equipments, lack political motivation, poor research, inadequate education and training. Short term actions are to be directed at socio economic and feasibility study with farmer and consumer participation, setting up of tree nurseries, planting of tree crops on farm, biogas production, alcohol production, education and training. Medium term action includes train selection of microorganism for production of alcohols. Long-term actions should concentrate on sylviculture, growing of algae for production of hydrogen, market assisted selection of trees and crops for energy production and genetic engineering of microbes.

138. Overall, ECA must help African countries pay a special attention to the production of biogas (methane), high calorie and rapid growing trees and alcohol biomass. The Commission should also engender political interest and raise funds for education and training, infrastructure development and research.

(f) Biosafety and Intellectual property Rights

(i) Biosafety

139. Problems to be solved in the area of biosafety include
a) lack of guidelines and regulations, lack of legal frameworks for implementation;
b) lack of well targeted policies and programmes,
c) inadequate coordination of on-going activities;
d) lack of personnel to implement biosafety regulations and applications at institutional and national levels;
e) lack of infrastructure for biosafety applications.

Actions to be taken include
a) sensitization of the public and national authorities on the need to establish biosafety guidelines,
b) development of regulations and legal framework;
c) development of capacity to implement biosafety guidelines and risk assessment management at the institutional IBC and national NBC levels;
d) development of capacity within the legal fraternity in the interpretation and implementation of biosafety issues;
e) development of infrastructure to handle biosafety issues related to relevant biotech applications;
f) development of capacity in processing applications;
g) encouragement of R&D in environmental safety and risk assessment;
h) development of well targeted and prioritized policies and programmes;
i) development of capacity for indigenous biotechnology applications; and
j) development of institutions to strengthen and coordinate biotechnology activities.

(ii) Intellectual property rights

140. Problems to be solved include
a) lack of publicity and awareness on the importance of IP in R&D, trade and industrial development;
b) lack of IP policy at institutional and national levels;
c) lack of trained personnel at institutional and national levels to implement IP laws and their utilization;
d) lack of skills and capacity in drafting applications for patents and IP laws;
e) lack in capacity to enforce IP laws.

Actions to be taken include
i) development of IP policies at national and institutional levels and provision of help to develop IP laws;
ii) sensitization of governments and policy makers on the need of IP to promote R&D;
iii) development of capacity in human resource at institutional and national levels for drafting and enforcement of IP laws;
iv) establishment of training in patent law and product licensing through workshops;
v) establishment of offices of technology licensing;
vi) development and equipment of nodes to serve as databases for information and documentation and create data base of patent lawyers by country;
vii) teaching of IP concepts in colleges and universities.

F. Closing

134. The Director of the division, Mr. Josué Dioné, closed the workshop. In his closing remarks, he expressed his deepest appreciation to the experts for the professional and dedicated attention to the workshop. He was very pleased at the detailed and useful pieces of documents that had been produced during the meeting. He was also grateful to UNU/INRA for their continued collaboration with ECA, for their participation and for providing a guest lecturer for the workshop.

135. Mr. Dioné thanked all the experts and participants for sacrificing to make the workshop a major success. He was particularly pleased that they had identified a niche in biotechnology which ECA can play to move the process in Africa forward. He assured them that their recommendation of establishing an ECA-Biotech and other recommendations will be undertaken. He wished everyone a safe trip back home.