Science and governance of modern biotechnology in Sub‐Saharan Africa—the case of Uganda

Abstract

Science policy, particularly as it applies to biotechnology and biosafety, has no single 'correct' approach to follow. An objective approach to biotechnology policy however requires three essential components: scientific advice, the engagement of a range of stakeholders in policy dialogue, and effective governance at a systemic level, in an 'innovation systems' sense, forming closer interaction between organizations and personnel to ensure that knowledge flows are maintained at all times. The article discusses the governance of modern biotechnology in Uganda. It shows that some progress is being made on interactivity among scientific organizations-many of whom are on the threshold of a capacity to become involved in gene transfer with potential application to the national needs. Interactivity, however, does not appear to be strong amongst governance bodies. Similarly the development of national policy, while strong in inspirational terms, seems in practice to be rather ad hoc and piecemeal, with uncertainty about who makes decisions and how these are to be implemented, monitored and evaluated. So, from an 'innovation systems' standpoint the governance of modern biotechnology in Uganda still has some way to go.

Getting to ‘Yes’: Governing Genetically Modified Crops in Uganda

“…Documents produced by the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Gachenga, ) and the African Union (Juma & Serageldin, ) celebrate the potential for GMOs to transform agricultural production, calling for increased capacity building, more open regulatory systems and greater investment to maximise their potential. Scholarly research has argued for an ‘objective’ approach to biotechnology policy that will maximise benefits to all users (Wafula & Clark, ; Kingiri & Hall, ). However, these observations and analyses focus almost exclusively on what governments should do to facilitate the regulation and approval of GM crops; they do not explain how or why interests come together to produce a particular regulatory path.…”

“…First, existing accounts insufficiently recognise how power and politics shape the governance of new biotechnologies (Harsh & Smith, ). To date, evaluations of policy and regulatory processes of GM crops in Kenya (Kingiri, ) and Uganda (Wafula & Clark, ) suggest that the scientific and technical capacity to evaluate risks of GM crops has been weak but improving, particularly as a result of partnerships with private firms and international organisations. However, as others have pointed out, these relationships are not neutral: ‘Partnerships should be seen for what they are: relationships, often unequal, where each partner strives to serve its own interests first and the outcomes of the partnership second’ (Crewe & Harrison, in Smith, : 651; Harsh, ).…”

Technology, governance and place: situating biotechnology in Kenya

“…3. Uganda has been partnering research centres in other countries for development of GM banana since 2002 (Wafula and Clark, 2005). An application was recently made to import a genetically modified banana into Uganda for confined trials (Nakkazi, 2007 …”

“…Again regional comparison is enlightening. Uganda has taken the position that no GM research or trials shall occur until a policy and regulatory legislation are prepared and approved (Wafula and Clark, 2005).…”

Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops

“…Within this theme, several papers discuss the types of national polices needed to facilitate smallholder adoption of GM crops and how to strengthen national plant-breeding institutions (e.g., References [50,51]). Another theme in the Africa literature concerned different regulatory approaches, how to raise biotech capacity in Africa and the potential economic effects at the national level of more restrictive and proactive policies on biotechnology [52,53]. A few papers discuss the effects of EU and US policy-making on African countries.…”