Factors influencing adoption of genetically modified crops in Africa

Abstract

The debate around genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa continues to grow especially among policy-makers, food manufacturers, farmer organisation and consumer advocacy groups and the general public. While other regions have taken a firm position on biotech crops, Africa remains largely ambivalent, with wide variation in GM policy across countries. The central objective of this paper is to analyse the factors that influence the adoption of GM crops in Africa. First we evaluate the current status of GM crop adoption in Africa. Second we identify the key enablers and hindrances to adoption of GM crops. The main factors include ministerial control of biosafety, peer country influence, stage of seed sector development, advocacy by key political figures, the media, activism, food security and technical capacity. We posit that, for most African countries, GM policy is guided by political rather than technological considerations with media and special interest groups playing a key role. Despite the numerous impediments, slow progress is being made in preparing the requisite enabling environment for biotechnology adoption in Africa.

Keywords:

• agricultural biotechnology
• adoption
• Africa
• policy and regulation
• genetically modified crops

JEL codes:

• Q16: Agricultural technology
• Q17: Agriculture in international trade
• Q18: Agricultural policy
• food policy

1. Introduction

As more countries adopt genetically modified (GM) crops (also known as biotech crops) the debate over the safety and merits of biotechnology has escalated. Since GM crops were commercialised in 1996 the acreage planted with these crops in the world has progressively increased, at an average rate of 6% annually (James, 2012). The main reasons cited for the widespread adoption of GM crops are economic benefits to farmers resulting from increased yields, the benefits of herbicide tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases. In 2012 more than 17.3 million farmers in 28 countries (20 developing and eight industrial countries) planted GM crops, which covered an estimated 170.3 hectares of farmland (James, 2012). As measured by total land planted to GM crops, developing countries are now leading the global adoption of biotechnology. With about 90% of GM crop adopters being small-scale farmers, adoption has not been limited to large-scale commercial farmers as previously speculated. Despite these global trends, adoption of GM crops in Africa has been slow and marred with controversy (Abidoye & Mabaya, 2014). As of 2012, Africa grew a combined 2.9 million of the global 170.3 million hectares of GM crops that were grown worldwide (James, 2012).

Despite scientific consensus on the safety of GM technology (National Academies, 2004; European Commission, 2010; World Health Organization, 2012), adoption of GM crops remains steeped in controversy and public debate. Public opinions and government stances on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) differ dramatically regionally across the world. For instance, spirited opposition to GM technology has tended to emanate from Europe, even as the European Food Safety Authority determined that there are no health threats from GM foods (European Food Safety Authority, 2012). Many European countries have imposed stringent regulatory controls that have not permitted testing, adoption or even importation of GM crops and products through trade (Seifert, 2013). In contrast, the USA has traditionally been favourable towards biotech crops. Over 40 varieties of GM crops have been approved in the USA in the past decade, with an average of 90% approval across all crops (James, 2012). There remains some debate, however, regarding mandatory labelling laws, which were passed in the states of Maine and Connecticut but failed to go through in California and Washington states in 2011 (Tan & Epley, 2014). Adoption of GM crops in South America has been rapid, with Brazil and Argentina ranking second and third respectively after the USA in 2012 (James, 2012).

The divergent positions on modern biotechnology between the Americas and Europe seem to send mixed signals to African countries, which would probably explains why African countries appear to pull in opposite directions. With the increase of GM crops grown globally there is significant pressure on Africa to adopt biotechnology to increase food security and enhance global competitiveness (James, 2012). On the other hand, Europe's hostility towards GM produce, as well as the influence of special interest groups, has dissuaded some countries from adopting the technology.

The broad objective of this paper is to analyse factors that influence the adoption of GM crops in Africa. The paper is structured as follows. First we evaluate the current status of GM crop adoption in Africa. Second we identify the key enablers and hindrances to adoption of GM crops on the continent. The paper closes with some conclusions and some recommendations for accelerating adoption of GM crops in Africa.

2. Current adoption of GM crops in Africa

In Africa, and indeed in all countries around the world, GM crops are subjected to stringent regulatory processes during development, field testing and environmental release. Presumably, government public policies and regulations on GM crops are aimed at exploiting potential benefits while safeguarding the potential risks on human, animal and environmental health. Towards this end, most countries signed and ratified international instruments, namely the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to provide an oversight safety framework in all activities involving GMOs that may cause adverse effects to biological diversity and human health (SCBD, 2000). It is thus obligatory for signatory countries to take appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to ensure that the testing, handling and utilisation of GMOs are undertaken in a manner that reduces the risks to humans and the environment by putting in place national biosafety regulatory systems. Such a system should, at a minimum, comprise of policy regimes, legislation, regulations and institutional mechanisms for overseeing research and development and commercialisation activities on GMOs at a country level (UNEP, 2008) While nearly all African countries have sought to institutionalise national biosafety regulatory systems in their territories, this effort is still fraught with a host of policy, legal and operational challenges (UNEP, 2008; Nang'ayo et al., 2014).

Despite the potential advantages, adoption of GM crops in Africa has been slow (Falck-Zepeda et al., 2013). At present only four African countries – Burkina Faso, Egypt, South Africa and Sudan – have fully commercialised GM crops. Table 1 presents, by crop and country, the area planted with GM crops in Africa during the 2012 cropping year. Other African countries are at various stages that may be viewed as precursors to adoption or commercialisation.

Table 1: Genetically modified crop adoption in Africa (hectares planted in 2012)

	Crop
Country	Cotton	Soybean	Maize	Total
Burkina Faso	313 781	0	0	313 781
Egypt	0	0	1 000	1 000
South Africa	11 000	450 000	2 430 000	2 891 000
Sudan	20 000	0	0	20 000
Total	344 781	450 000	2 431 000	3 225 781

Source: Compiled from James (2012).

Nine African countries currently conduct contained field trials of GM crops: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda. Insect-resistant cotton and drought-tolerant maize are being tested in multiple countries. Other GM crops being tested include disease-resistant banana, virus-resistant cassava, nitrogen use-efficient rice and insect-resistant cowpea, maize, and sweet potato (James, 2012). The slow increase in the number of countries conducting GM crop field trials in the past few years reflects an equally slow inclination towards large-scale adoption in regions of Africa. The reasons for this are many and complex, but largely hinge on absence or the nature of policy and regulations governing GM technology at the country level (Karembu et al., 2009; Falck-Zepeda et al., 2013). There is a notable heterogeneity across countries of the continent, with significant variation in policy, legislation and administrative mechanisms applicable to GM crops (Nang'ayo et al., 2014). Some countries, such as Burkina Faso, commercialised GM cotton before requisite legislation was in place. Other countries, such as Kenya, have had legislation on GMOs for years, but remain in the development and testing phases and have yet to successfully approve any GM crops.

3. Factors influencing adoption of GM crops

A key complicating factor in GM crop adoption is that, unlike most agricultural technologies that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the ministries or departments of agriculture, modern biotechnology attracts many public and private-sector stakeholders, some of whom have conflicting interests (Karembu et al., 2009; Spielman & Zambrano, 2013). In most African countries, GM crop adoption requires approval from the following ministries and government departments: agriculture, trade and commerce, environment, food safety and consumer protection, rural development, science and technology. The positions and political power vested in these government departments have a direct effect on GM policies and regulations (Paarlberg, 2008). As seen in Figure 1, the overriding agendas of whether or not to adopt GM technology are often determined based on political rather than technological considerations, and are often filtered through layers of politics and special interest groups. As a result, the approval process for GM activities tends to be lengthy and outcomes are hard to predict, owing to the numerous considerations at play. In this section we explore the key factors influencing adoption of GM crops among African countries.

Figure 1: Key factors influencing adoption

3.1. Ministerial control of biosafety

One of the key factors that determine whether a country is likely to embrace GM technology is the position of the government. While many players may influence a government's position, the jurisdiction over biosafety seems to play a pivotal role (Gupta & Falkner, 2006). In Africa, biosafety oversight is usually either vested in the ministry of agriculture or the ministry of environment. These two ministries typically have different, often conflicting motivators and concerns in their approach to biosafety. The ministry of environment is traditionally tasked with protecting the environment, and tends to view GM crops as a possible threat with less obvious environmental benefits. In contrast, the main goals of the ministry of agriculture – food security and global competitiveness – often favour productivity-enhancing technologies such as biotechnology. This phenomenon is apparent when looking at countries and their stages of biotechnology policy. Table 2 divides African countries based on whether biosafety falls under the ministry of agriculture or the ministry of environment. As shown in Table 2, 56% of the countries that house biosafety in the ministry of agriculture have policies that promote biotechnology advancement, and another 11% have draft policies. By contrast, only 21% of countries that house biosafety in the ministry of environment have policies on GM technology. The other 11% of countries have draft policies which are still unclear whether they will promote or prohibit modern biotechnology.

Table 2: Ministerial control of biosafety

	Biosafety under a ministry of agriculture	Biosafety under a ministry of environment
Country	Botswana*, DR Congo, Ghana*, Guinea*, Lesotho*, Mauritius, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe	Angola, Benin, Botswana*, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Djibouti, DR Congo*, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana*, Guinea*, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho*, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda
Current GM policy (%)	56	21
Draft GM policy (%)	11	21
No GM policy (%)	33	58
Total	9	29
Average year adopted	2004	2007

Note: *Countries with biotechnology policies and regulations under both ministries.

The majority of African countries, 29 countries in all, place the oversight of biosafety and biotechnology under the ministry of environment and only nine place it under the ministry of agriculture. A few countries pursue a dual approach, requiring both ministries to approve biotechnology applications, thereby increasing the bureaucracy (Okeno et al., 2013). The case of Zambia, where up to six ministries share biosafety oversight, best serves to illustrate this point. While Zambia has a relatively advanced scientific infrastructure, the many ministries that have to vet and approve a new technology slow down and increase the costs of the approval process. Not surprisingly, Zambia currently has a ban on GMO products that are unmilled (Lewin, 2007).

Zambia's neighbour Malawi is a different story. Although its agricultural system is much less advanced than Zambia's, Malawi has biosafety housed in the Commission for Science and Technology that is much more supportive of technological agricultural improvements and is currently conducting contained field trials for GM crops. Similarly, the approving authority for GM crops in South Africa falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, whose core objectives are food security and economic growth. Despite the many vocal civic and non-governmental organisation groups opposing GMOs in South Africa, over 50 types of GM events have been approved for commercial use (ISAAA, 2013). It is important to note, however, that the placement of biosafety oversight under the different ministries may, from the beginning, reflect the government's overall attitude towards biotechnology; that is, there may be some bidirectional causality in this relationship.

3.2. Peer country influence

Most African countries look at neighbouring countries for policy guidance and to benchmark competition (Meseguer, 2005). Steps towards GM crop adoption by one country can trigger a domino effect of neighbours that strive to keep up. This apparent ‘wait-and-see’ approach could be based on the general perception that GM technology is foreign and possibly risky. Porous borders between most African countries also necessitate country-cluster decision-making as agricultural technologies are likely to spread beyond national borders. As can be seen in Figure 2, the neighbour country influence is regional. In West Africa, countries adopted biotechnology policy relatively recently and in quick succession. Burkina Faso passed legislation allowing GM crops in 2006 and has commercialised Bt cotton and is now expanding into food crops with Bt cowpea under confined field trials. In 2008, Mali passed biotechnology legislation, but has remained in the contained research phase. Ghanaian farmers, after observing the improved GM cotton crop of their Burkina neighbours, pressured the government to fast-track access to GM technology (James, 2012). Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon all passed GMO legislation in the last few years, and all are currently conducting contained field trials (ABNE, 2012).

Figure 2: Timing of biotechnology legislation enactment in Africa

In southern Africa, a similar narrative has played out. South Africa was one of the earliest adopters of GM crops, having adopted policy and legislation supportive of the technology in 1997. Consequently all six neighbouring countries (Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe) have since enacted or are in the process of enacting GM legislation; whereas in eastern Africa, where there was no strong early leader on GM law or policy, only one country, Sudan, has commercialised the technology (James, 2012), a move that is expected to encourage Kenya and Uganda to proceed faster with testing and eventual commercialisation of GM crops.

3.3. Stage of seed sector development

GM crops, even when approved, need a well-developed seed sector to produce, market and disseminate seed, especially to rural smallholder farms (Gates Foundation, 2013). An advanced seed sector is required to efficiently disseminate affordable seeds and train rural farmers on proper stewardship. This is necessary because GM crops are also governed by the same regulations that apply to seed from conventional breeding. According to Mabaya et al. (2013), seed sector development among African countries can be classified into the following five stages: nascent, emerging, early growth, late growth and mature.

In Table 3 and Figure 3 we use this classification system to analyse the impact of seed sector development on GM application stage and policy presence. It is clear that a country's progress towards adopting GM crops is positively correlated with the stage of seed sector development. None of the countries with nascent seed sectors have a GM policy. By contrast, countries with the most advanced sectors (stages 4 and 5) all have biotechnology policies in place. Those in the early stages (stages 2 and 3) have the highest rates (four out of 11 and one out of four, respectively) of GM policy in draft form. It is evident from this trend that a vibrant and well-established seed sector can be a key driving force for GM adoption. We conclude that adoption of improved seed varieties, as manifested in a country's stage of seed sector development, results in an increase in demand for the productivity-enhancing technologies and thereby drives support for GM crops. There are, however, a few exceptions to this trend. Burkina Faso and the Sudan have commercialised Bt cotton, although they have less developed seed sectors. In this case, the highly centralised decision-making for the cotton subsector could have played a role in the expedited approval of Bt cotton. On the other end, Kenya has a much more advanced seed sector yet it lags behind on GM adoption.

Figure 3: African countries’ seed sector stage compared with their GMO application stage

Table 3: Seed sector development versus GMO application stages

Seed sector stage	Country	GMO application stage		Policy	Ban on GMOs
5	South Africa	4	commercial release	1997	No
4	Kenya	3	contained field trials	2006	Yes
4	Malawi	3	contained field trials	2008	No
4	Uganda	3	contained field trials	2008	No
4	Zambia	1	developing capacity for R&D	2003	Yes
4	Zimbabwe	2	contained research	2005	Yes
3	Burkina Faso	4	commercial release	2004	No
3	Ethiopia	1	developing capacity for R&D	–	Yes
3	Ghana	2	contained research	2011	No
3	Nigeria	3	contained field trials	2012	No
3	Tanzania	2	contained research	2009	Yes
2	Botswana	1	developing capacity for R&D	2010	No
2	Burundi	1	developing capacity for R&D	–	No
2	Cameroon	2	contained research	2003	No
2	Cote d'Ivoire	0	none	–	No
2	Madagascar	1	developing capacity for R&D	–	Yes
2	Mali	2	contained research	–	No
2	Mozambique	0	none	–	Yes
2	Niger	1	developing capacity for R&D	–	No
2	Rwanda	1	developing capacity for R&D	2000	No
2	Senegal	1	developing capacity for R&D	–	No
2	Tunisia	2	contained research	–	No
1	Angola	0	none	–	Yes
1	Central Africa	0	none	–	No
1	DR Congo	0	none	–	No
1	Liberia	0	none	–	No
1	Sierra Leone	0	none	–	No
1	South Sudan	0	none	–	No

Note: R&D = research and development.

3.4. Advocacy by key political figures and public influence

Biotechnology policy is written or approved by politicians who are subject to various influences and may have agendas that go beyond scientific and technological promise. Figure 4 illustrates the primary influences that sway politicians and influence policy on GM crops. Strong views held by a country's president or other senior political figures, such as ministers of health, environment and agriculture among others, can drive public policy. For example, the president of Burkina Faso was in favour of biotechnology, which explains why testing of Bt cotton began in 2003, before legislation was fully in place, and more so why its commercialisation was quickly approved.

Figure 4: Flowchart of biotechnology policy drivers

Zambia has been one of the strongest opponents to GM technology in Africa (Lewin, 2007), but that stance has evolved as presidencies have changed. In 2005 the president, the late Levy Mwanawasa, said he would never allow GMOs in the country, referring to them as ‘poison’ (Cauvin, 2002). In 2010 the following president, Rupiah Banda, was open to discussing the potential for GM crops. Current president Michael Sata has criticised his predecessors for their reluctance to accept GMOs, resulting in some slight progress towards GM application in Zambia. The ban on GM food products, however, remains in place in Zambia (Stieber, 2013).

In 2008 Kenya's minister of agriculture was a key advocate for biotechnology and helped to champion the passage of biosafety legislation in 2009 (ISAAA, 2010). Afterwards, in 2012, the minister of public health used a public health act to ban importation of GM food (Stieber, 2013). Despite this, a public–private sector partnership was created to develop Bt cotton varieties according to agro-ecological zone by 2015. The case of Kenya is evidence of how one or two politicians can influence GM policy and its application, and how tenuous a country's position can be as a result of discordant political posturing.

According to James (2012) there have been 24 ministers from African countries who have endorsed biotechnology as a tool to address food insecurity, yet legislation enactment for GM technology in their respective countries remains very slow, pointing to deep-seated internal political disagreements and differing public opinion. In fact, public opinion holds significant sway over elected politicians. Public awareness campaigns on the role of biotechnology have been developed in 16 African countries to provide more information to the public. While this may seem impressive, anti-GM lobby campaigns have also increased in Africa, further inhibiting the political will to enact policies and legislation for GM crops.

3.5. Role of the media

There is a rapid uptake of popular press and social networks in most African countries. This flow of information and opinion, fuelled by growing use of information and communication technologies such as cell phones, has led to a communication revolution among the general public. These new communications platforms are, however, more likely to focus on sensationalised stories about GMOs than on the science behind them. The media often respond to sensationalism rather than scientific evidence. Anti-GMO activists are also prominent in the media, and while they often bring up important issues they are not bound by the same rules and verified evidence as scientists. On the other hand, scientists are often neither trained nor incentivised to share findings beyond peer-reviewed outlets. Associated media coverage also sometimes means that one side, usually the more sensationalist one, is covered with little or no dissenting opinion from the other side.

Popular media outlets publish what sells, whether it is hyping unverified dangers of GMOs, voicing legitimate concerns or touting GMOs as the only solution to African agriculture. For example, the popular media site allAfrica.com in September 2013 produced an article warning about the threat of GMOs, and then three months later in November 2013 wrote an article calling for a centralised African regulatory body to develop GMOs. Another example is the local news agency Modern Ghana, which came out with a piece in September 2013 that asked ‘Are we becoming GMO human test tubes?’, arguing that ‘so far there have been no studies of the effects of GMOs in the human diet’ (Rock, 2013). These statements are not based on facts or studies, and furthermore scientific studies are rarely cited in popular African media. The shortage of scientific correspondents or reporters in most of the African media outlets can also be blamed for the poor quality coverage of the GMO debate. Moreover, for editors who are interested in selling more papers (or increasing their audience), the sensationalism of an anti-GMO headlines often gets a larger viewership from the sceptical public.

3.6. Activism

According to the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which many African countries have signed and ratified, a functional national biosafety framework should ideally have mechanisms for capturing input and feedback from the public. To a large extent, this interaction with the public would clearly demonstrate transparency and fairness that would further engender public confidence. A large number of national regulatory systems, by law, solicit for public views on applications for GM crop trials and release. According to ISAAA (2010), such forums are, however, often dominated by sensational views from anti-GM lobby groups. Rather than promoting dialogue between proponents and opponents of GM technology, the forums often become a spectacle of anti-GM demonstrators picketing along streets or GM crop testing fields to denounce modern biotechnology.

Perhaps the most vocal anti-GMO activists in Africa are non-governmental organisations. At the forefront of this movement is Greenpeace, a European-based non-governmental organisation with global presence. Greenpeace has been highly effective in raising concerns over GMOs and encouraging countries to ban them. Media-savvy anti-GMO activists such as Vandana Shiva have targeted African countries on their crusading mission to demonise GM crops (Specter, 2014). At national level, civic organisations and religious groups often are also strong opponents to GMOs, worried about potential changes to livelihoods, unfounded health concerns and a scepticism of modern science. There are currently 10 African countries that have banned the import of unmilled GM crops and products: Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The strongest activist GMO opposition has been in South Africa and Kenya. In 2007 a coalition of Kenyan civil society groups was able to prevent Parliament from passing a biosafety bill that would have allowed GM testing and research (ISAAA, 2010). In South Africa it has become more difficult for GM crops to get approved (Moola & Munnik, 2007). The leading anti-GMO groups currently active in Africa are the African Centre for Biosafety, Biowatch SA, COPAGEN (Western Africa), South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering, Network of Farmers and Agricultural Producers Organisations of West Africa, Eastern & Southern Africa Farmers Forum and La Via Campesina (Navdanya International, 2012). In contrast there is little counter-activism voiced in Africa outside the scientific community. Much of the development community has mainly stayed away from the topic to avoid controversy. This silence from key development agencies working on African agriculture can be misconstrued as anti-GM sentiment.

3.7. Food security crises

During times of surplus production there is more reluctance to adopt GM crops, the need is less apparent and the process is even slower. After a food security crisis such as a severe drought, however, farmers and policy-makers alike consider a wider range of options, including GM crops.

Droughts are one of the most severe threats to agriculture in Africa, where only 4% of cropland in sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated (Paarlberg, 2008). Over half the African countries experienced one or more severe droughts in the past 10 years, and 15% have experienced more than five (EM-DAT, 2013). Increased demand for drought-resistant maize has been one fitting response to the high frequency of droughts. The Water Efficient Maize for Africa project coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation has had multiple trial seasons underway in three countries (Kenya, South Africa and Uganda) to develop drought-tolerant maize (James, 2012).

As policy intent is shifting from food security towards adequate nutrition, more countries are looking towards biotechnology to provide some solutions. There are many GM crop varieties that are currently being developed to address malnutrition. The BioCassava Plus project in Kenya and Nigeria is testing a vitamin A, iron and protein-enhanced cassava. Kenya and Nigeria are also testing enhanced sorghum through the African Biofortified Sorghum project, with enhanced levels of vitamin A, zinc and iron (James, 2012).

Ten African countries have bans on unmilled GM crops, including in the form of food aid. During times of famine, grains are often sent from South Africa and other areas where GM crops are grown. The bans prevent the needed food aid from entering the country until it has been shipped to a milling centre and processed. This was the case in 2005 when Zambia, along with three other countries, rejected GM food aid during a regional famine in Southern Africa, waiting until legislation was in place to ‘ensure that GM foods did not pose a threat to humans or the environment’ (Moola & Munnik, 2007). While there were no deaths from the famine as reported by the Zambia Red Cross, there was loud public outcry as the country rejected any food aid not accompanied by a GM-free certificate. The battle continued in 2007 when the minister of science and technology pushed Parliament to adopt a biosafety bill targeted at preventing GMOs from entering the country. Currently, the public outrage over the rejection of food aid along with pressure from local farmers is creating a more receptive Zambian environment.

A pest or disease outbreak also improves attitudes towards GM crops, especially if biotechnology already offers possible solutions. This has been the case for banana, a staple in some parts of Africa. In Uganda bananas are the main source of starch, and the typical Ugandan eats about one pound of bananas per day (Doucleff, 2013). A devastating banana Xanthomonas wilt disease broke out in 2001 threatening all banana crops in central and eastern Africa. This provided a huge incentive to develop a GM banana resistant to the disease as well as to push through policy measures to allow commercialisation of GM crops. Since 2006 Uganda has invested efforts to address the devastating disease. It is important to note that banana plants are sterile, which makes plant breeding for disease resistance extremely difficult and lengthy (Churchill, 2013). Biotechnology is viewed as a more feasible option in this case.

3.8. Technical capacity

Technological capacity remains a major limitation for adoption of GM policy and application. For GM crops to be fully commercialised, a country needs a system in place that includes development, testing, commercialisation and often an extension/education process for a new crop. All of this requires advanced technical capacity, not just the facilities but also highly skilled personnel, scientific tools and financial resources to test and approve each GMO event.

Clearly the existence of conducive policy and legislative frameworks are necessary for advancement of GM crops, but the two facets can only work when complemented by a matching institutional arrangement for handling and processing requests and permits related to testing and release of GM crops and products. Equally important are capacities for conducting science-based risk assessments to inform decision-making, including capacities for ensuring effective monitoring and inspections for compliance post approval. Indeed, a functional biosafety regulatory system does not stop its oversight once a GMO has been approved for confined testing or commercial release. According to Jaffe (2012), administrative systems for biosafety of GM crops in Africa are still in their infancy. While most countries have established national biosafety committees (NBCs) to be the national competent authorities on biosafety, members of NBCs typically work on an ad-hoc basis, maintaining full-time engagements perhaps as university research professors elsewhere, only convening for a day or two to review applications presented to the NBC (Nang'ayo et al., 2014). In Uganda, for instance, all but one member of a team of 13 that constitute the NBC have full employment elsewhere and only serve on the committee part-time. Similarly, in Nigeria, other than the staff of two that runs the Biosafety Office, all other members of the NBC work part-time.

In the final analysis, countries with higher technological capacity are also those with the higher percentages of current biotechnology policies, as shown in Table 4. Countries with medium technological capacity are those with the greatest number of policies in draft form, possibly preparing to introduce the GM crop technology. High capacity implies confidence in handling the new biotechnology, such as South Africa, which has seven GM crops in the field trail phase (James, 2012).

Table 4: Technical capacity of countries and GMO policy presence

	GMO technical capacity^a
Policy	Low	Medium	High
Current (%)	10	41	88
Draft (%)	17	35	0
None (%)	60	12	13
Unanswered (%)	10	12	0
Total	30	17	8

Note: ^aCapacity ratings according to the African Centre for Biosafety (Moola & Munnik, 2007).

4. Conclusion

Worldwide, the area under GM crops has ‘increased 100 fold from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to over 175 million hectares in 2013’ (James, 2013). Despite the rapid adoption, the debate on the safety of this technology is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. While many other countries and regions have made a firm stance, Africa remains largely ambivalent. There is wide variation in GM policy across African countries, largely driven by factors including governmental ministerial structures, peer country influence, stage of seed sector development, advocacy by key political figures, the media, activism, food security and technical capacity. Opposition has been largely based on caution rather than valid science. Some countries also face limitations because of lack of infrastructure and technology. Despite these deterrents, slow progress is being made in preparing the requisite enabling environment for biotechnology adoption. There are currently nine countries in Africa conducting contained field trails, as well as eight more countries doing preliminary contained research (ABNE, 2013).

During the examination of factors that influence adoption of GMOs, some trends and linkages became clear that need to be taken into account in policy and regulation formation. One of these is the link among public opinion, media, politics and policy. In order to progress, countries need to address misconceptions about the technology, both positive and negative, within that cycle. Some possible strategies include the following:

• Public education and awareness strategy to improve public opinion.

• Scientific studies and findings that are incorporated into more popular media pieces.

• Conferences for political leaders and decision-makers to discuss biotechnology issues collaboratively.

There has been a call for unified GM policy and regulations at the regional level (Gates Foundation, 2013). Such regional initiatives can help countries with low scientific capacity use collaborative, advanced biotechnology and frameworks and combine expertise at regional levels. After nine years, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa has produced draft policies and guidelines on biotechnology for eastern and southern Africa (James, 2012). This policy will help to share information, resources and expertise as well as address the handling and trade issues of GM crops. West Africa is still in the early development stage of a regional biotechnology framework.

Acknowledgement

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.