Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/

Next Harvest IIAgricultural Biotechnology Capacity

and Development in Africa

Jose Falck-Zepeda, Patricia Zambrano, Geoffrey Arinaitwe, Muffy Kock, Virginia Kimani, Sylvia

Uzochukwu,

“ Next Harvest II: Biotechnology Capacity in Africa, A Way Forward” , OFAB-PBS Roundtable, June 5,

2015 Kampala Uganda. This presentation has not been formally peer-reviewed by IFPRI or elsewhere.

Opinions in this presentation and paper are solely those of the authors and not of IFPRI and its donors.

Next Harvest II team

Country team leaders

IFPRI-PBS

• Sylvia Uzochukwu -• Geofrey Arinaitwe -• Virginia Kimani -• Muffy Koch -

NigeriaUgandaKenyaSouth Africa

• Patricia Zambrano• Jose Falck-Zepeda• Judy Chambers

• Pilar Rickert• Hillary Hanson

Background

Next Harvest, 2004 IFPRI-AfDB report, 2014

Next Harvest II Scope• Countries: Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda

and South Africa • Technologies: Agricultural R&D

biotechnology– Number of public and private

institutions– Focus of agbiotech R&D project– Human and financial resources– Techniques and methods– Focus of established collaborations – State of current policy and

regulations– Constraints and opportunities

Scope: Institutions working on agbiotech

• Government research

• Academic

• Private companies

• Associations

• International, Continental and other organizations

• Regulatory

Instruments developed and implemented

• Institute/group questionnaire 81

• Project questionnaire 129

• Semi-structured interviews 119

23

30

59

15

22

20

Uganda

Kenya

Nigeria

SouthAfrica

NH II Identified

7

5

1

15

2

4

1

10

Institutes implementing agbiotech, 2012

All Private

Ongoing agbiotech projects, 2012

2

28

2

10

10

30

3

5

10

45

Microbes

Forestry andornamentals

Livestock andfisheries

Crops

Nigeria Kenya Uganda

South Africa: number of groups implementing Agbiotech R&D, 2012

Sector Type R&D groups

#

R&D projects

Estimated #Public Public research 19 715

Academic 16 215

Government 1 10

Private NGO 1 1

Private 15 25

All 52 966

Number of researchers implementing agbiotech projects, 2012

59.884.2

109.0 102.4 99.023.1

38.8

68.059.0 70.0

Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.DiplomasOther support

45.0 33.0 43.024.0

50.0

9.0 22.032.0

24.0

50.0

Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support

16.4 12.8 15.7 20.034.05.0 11.8 12.0 14.0

19.0

Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support

Male Female

Kenya, 160.7 FTE

Nigeria, 382.8 FTE

Uganda, 279 FTE

Estimated number of researchers and support implementing agbiotech projects

South Africa, 2012

Degree ARC All others Total

Ph. D. 105 34 139

M.Sc. 213 70 283

B. Sc. 678 222 899

Other Research 13 4 17

Support 825 231 1,055

All 1,833 561 2,394

Estimated Agbiotech R&D spending, 2012Institutes

(number)

Local Currency Unit

(millions)

2012 US$

(millions)

As % of

AgGDP

Kenya 22 421.9 KY Shillings 4.99 0.041

Nigeria 20 870.6 Naira 5.55 0.005

South

Africa1 730.8 Rand 89.12 0.904

Uganda 15 ---- Ug Shillings 5.5 0.098

Number of projects by technology

GM crop projects under development

CropKenya Nigeria South Africa * Uganda

Regulatory status

Banana Lab/GH - - CFT

Cassava CFT CFT TR Lab/GH

Cotton PC - CFT CFT

Cowpea Lab/GH CFT Lab -

Deciduous fruit - - Lab -

Finger Millet - - - CFT

Groundnuts - - - CFT

Gypsophila CT - - -

Irish Potato Lab/GH - CFT -

Jatropha PofC - - -

Maize CFT - CFT CFT

Pigeonpea CBI - - -

Rice - - - CFT

Sorghum CFT CFT GH -

Sugarcane - - PC -

Sweet potato Lab/GH - Lab CFT

Wattle - Lab

Limitations addressed by collaboration established

1. To solve technical research capabilities, 23%

2. Funding, 18%

3. To overcome constraints regarding the ability to implement research, 17%

4. To solve problems of access to research inputs, 13%

5. All other reasons, 29%

The Furman, Porter and Stern model for determinants of national innovative capacity

Cumulative technology

sophistication

Human capital and financial

resources available for R&D

activity

Set of resource commitments and

policy choices

• Investments in education/training

• Intellectual property protection

• Information and communication

technologies

•Openness to international trade

Common Innovation

Infrastructure

Plant Breeding

Biotechnology

Cluster-Specific Environment

For Innovation

Quality of

LinkagesContext for Firm

Strategy and Rivalry

Factor (Input)

ConditionsDemand

Conditions

Related & Supporting

Industries

National innovation and GM biotechnology capacity in Africa

Common innovationinfrastructure

Links, networks and technology transfer

capacity Cluster specific environment

Countries

Overall innovative capacity

IntellectualProperty situation

Economy wide status Market size

Strength of the private sector

Biotechnology technical capacity

Biosafety regulatory capacity

Summary biotechcapacity

Algeria +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ + +++

Burkina ++ + ++ +++ ++ + ++ +

Egypt +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +++

Kenya +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Nigeria +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++

South Africa +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ +++

Tanzania +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + ++

Uganda +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Zambia ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta,

Debdatta; Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC:

African Development Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute.

Effective agbiotech capacity: Mapping countries to policy situations

Policy situation Policy objective to further develop biotechnology capacity

Small market Medium markets Large markets

Nonselective biotechnology importers

Develop the framework for using biotechnology products

Seychelles, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cape Verde, Comoros, Mauritius, Equatorial Guinea, Swaziland, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, Lesotho, Botswana, Liberia

Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Rep., Congo Rep., Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea Libya, Mozambique, Mali, Rwanda, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo, Zimbabwe

Cameroon, Congo, Dem. Rep. Sudan, Niger

Selective biotechnology importers

Improve the efficiency of agricultural research through the use of biotechnology tools

Namibia, Ghana, Tunisia Ethiopia, Tanzania, Algeria, Morocco,

Zambia, Uganda, Kenya

Biotechnology tools users

Improve the efficiency and R&D products

NigeriaEgypt

BiotechnologyInnovators

Take advantage of the development of innovation capacity based on biotechnology applications and the development of innovations

South Africa

Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta, Debdatta;

Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC: African Development

Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute.

Concluding remarks • This study shows that there has been significant agbiotech

R&D progress over the past 15 years in the four countries studied

• If a countries desires to develop agbiotech capacity, it needs to further advance the enabling environment to facilitate research, develop and transfer of agbiotech products to farmers – to a lesser degree South Africa…– Biotechnology and biosafety laws and policies

– Seed and vegetative material systems

– Intellectual property issues

– Increases investments in technology deployment and stewardship approaches

• Critical to devise innovation pathway and how to promote linkages, common innovation infrastructure, and the innovation clusters – Moving towards a bioeconomy and a knowledge based

economy

Funding for this project was provided by

The John Templeton Foundation