Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using ... - EASAC

innovation. Many in the scientific community note
that better information sharing is also needed to
counter the unhelpful contribution by anti-GM
activists, often coming from outside the African
countries, who try to deter technology
development (see also ASSAf, 2012).
• Human resources capacity and infrastructure for
R&D. The EU is seen to have a valuable role in helping
by training scientists and supporting research. Joint
projects in laboratories in both continents will be
welcome but, overall, the locus for collaboration
would need to move from European to African
institutions.
• Capacity for linking science and policy: to improve
the interface and facilitate translation of advances in
science and technology into practical applications.
There is a key role for academies of science in
providing independent, relevant and timely advice to
inform policy options.
Creating and using the regulatory framework is of
critical importance in harnessing technology, particularly
in the early phases of technology development
and implementation, before its impact can be fully
ascertained. This is discussed in detail by ASSAf (2012) in
their analysis of what proportionate biosafety regulation
should cover. Whereas a relatively stringent and rigid
approach to regulation might have been considered
prudent early in technology development, a more
flexible and proportionate approach can subsequently be
entertained, based on accumulating scientific evidence
and experience. Concern was expressed in the workshop
that an excessively extended political debate about GM
regulation discourages the scientific community. Thus, a
relatively inflexible precautionary, approach to regulating
biotechnology initially imported into African countries
from the EU now merits reconsideration and reform.
There will also be increasing opportunities for developing
regional regulatory capacity and harmonising regulatory
approaches in Africa.
Enhancing research infrastructure and filling research
gaps is also vital to address African needs and
opportunities. It was agreed that African countries
should fulfil their promise to invest 1% of gross domestic
product in science, technology and innovation and that
agriculture is a major priority for this investment. The
biosciences research agenda was discussed extensively
in the workshop but, in addition, it was observed that
more research is required in the social sciences in Africa to
complement the biosciences and help to understand the
social impact of innovation.
A new commitment to public-private partnership for R&D
and innovation needs to build on the current situation
where most research in agricultural biotechnology in
Africa is within the public sector. Although multinational
companies had initially been dominant in public–private
partnerships worldwide, this is no longer the case. The
Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
(SAGCOT, http://www.sagcot.com) initiated in 2010,
provides an interesting risk sharing model of public–
private partnership involving multiple stakeholders.
Such models of partnership might also be more broadly
relevant for developing the extension services, using
expertise from NGOs or the private sector to deliver
innovation.
The broader context of infrastructure for agricultural
innovation must also be taken into account when
considering how to benefit from genetic technologies.
For example, without concomitant improvements in
agronomic practices, organised food processing and
marketing, any impact of a specific new technology will
be diluted (ASSAf, 2012).
Labelling of GM products is a controversial topic
and is scientifically indefensible for products that are
substantially the same as those of non-GM origin.
Currently, while GM products for export from Africa
to the EU would have to be labelled, this would not
necessarily be the case for local markets, and this
dichotomy raises difficult issues for product segregation.
There are cultural differences between African countries,
as elsewhere, in attitudes to GM labelling. Further effort
to raise awareness of the issues may be valuable as part
of the discussion on setting coherent priorities for policy
for African countries, for example in support of improved
nutrition using GM biofortified crops.
Applying similar technologies elsewhere in the African
bioeconomy also merits detailed consideration. There
are various possible opportunities, for example,
for bioremediation, and the production of energy,
pharmaceuticals and other high-value chemicals from
biomass. The workshop recommended that academies
of science take a lead in informing and advising policymakers
to broaden their scope in understanding and
enabling the potential applications of biotechnology and
that the EU develop its partnership role with Africa in
capacity building to address these other applications for
the bioeconomy.
EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | 55