A regulatory framework is among the major factors that determine the innovative capacity of a nation. It may block or ease innovative performance; it may scare away skills and expertise or may reverse brain drain and waste, it may attract and retain investment or lead to relocation of investors. The Ethiopian Biosafety Proclamation of 2009 has come under thorough scrutiny from all sides for its effect on innovation in biotechnology in Ethiopia. While it was expected to introduce a creative mechanism of compliance with international environmental agreements without upsetting the promising biotechnology research in Ethiopia, it conspicuously failed to strike a balance between the imperatives of promoting innovation and protecting humans and biodiversity. Contrary to the claims of the architects of the Proclamation, the legislation hardly entertained any national indigenous input other than adopting a more stringent version of the parent law—the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
The article examines the Ethiopian Biosafety law and its impact on innovation in biotechnology and other emerging technologies that go by other names. It will discuss some striking parallels between EU biotechnology regulation and the Proclamation and in particular the U-turns Europe is taking. Broader issues of the linkage between regulation and innovation policy and the imperatives of expediting innovation are emerging as Ethiopia takes the road Europe is abandoning and even international biosafety regulation is revising. It will argue that the promotion of the responsible development of biotechnology in Ethiopia needs to be reinstated as a priority and not pushed aside as secondary interest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Addis Fortune (2010). New forum seeks to prune GMO law. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.addisfortune.com/New%20Forum%20Seeks%20to%20Prune%20GMO%20Law.htm
2.
AzadiHossienHoPeter (2010). Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: A review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances, 28(1), 160–168.
3.
AzadiHossienTalsmaN.HoP.ZarafshaniK. (2011). GM crops in Ethiopia: A realistic way to increase agricultural performance?Trends in Biotechnology, 29(1), 6–8.
4.
BarronNadineCouzens, (Ed.) (2004). Intellectual property rights and plant variety protection in South Africa: An international perspective. Journal of Environmental Law, 16(1), 19–47.
5.
BBC (2008). Could GM crops help feed Africa? Retrieved 10June2013 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7428789.stm
BoydWilliam (2003). Wonderful potencies? Deep structure and the problem of monopoly in agricultural biotechnology. In SchurmanRachelKelsoDennis D.T. (Eds), Engineering trouble: Biotechnology and its discontents (pp. 24–62). Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
CarrollLewis (1999). Through the looking-glass and what Alice found there. New York: Dover Publications Ltd.
9.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Texts and Annexes (2000). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
10.
Commission Press Release (2003). European legislative framework for GMOs now in place (IP/03/1056, 22 July 2003). Retrieved 10June2013 from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/1056&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
11.
European Commission (1998). Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 Amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the Contained Use of Genetically Modified Micro-organisms,Official Journal L 330, 05/12/1998 P. 0013–0031. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998L0081:EN:HTML
12.
European Commission (2001). Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:106:0001:0038:EN:PDF
13.
European Commission (2003). Regulation (EC) No. 1946/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on Transboundary Movements of Genetically Modified Organisms. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:287:0001:0010:EN:PDF
14.
Gebre EgziabherTewolde (2003). The use of genetically modified crops in agriculture and food production, and their impacts on the environment—A developing world perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Plant Soil Science, 53(1), 9–13.
JonesRichard (2008). The question of complexity. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(5), 245–246.
17.
Kameri-MbotePatricia (2002). The development of biosafety regulation in Africa in the context of the Cartagena Protocol: Legal and administrative. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 11(1), 62–73.
18.
KelsoDennis (2003). Recreating democracy. In SchurmanRachelKelsoDennis (Eds), Engineering trouble: Biotechnology and its discontents, (pp. 239–524). Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
KohmKatherine (2009). Shortcomings of the Cartagena protocol: Resolving the liability loophole at the international level. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 27(1), 145–179.
20.
Le ChalonyCatherineMoisseronJean-Yves (2010). Research governance in Egypt: Biotechnology as a case study. Science Technology Society, 15(2), 371–397.
21.
LeeMaria (2008). EU regulation of GMOs: Law and decision making for a new technology. UK: Edward Elgar.
22.
Lisbon European Council (2000). European Union’s strategic goal for the next decade, Presidency Conclusions. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
23.
MgbakoChiBraaschS.DegolA.MorganM.SeguraF.TezeraT. (2008). Silencing the Ethiopian courts: Non-judicial constitutional review and its impact on human rights. Fordham International Law Journal, 32(1), 259–297.
24.
MorrisS.H. (2007). EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: A case of the emperor’s new clothes?Trends in Biotechnology, 25(1), 2–6.
25.
NEPAD Office of Science and Technology (2006). Africa’s science and technology consolidated plan of action. Pretoria, South Africa: NEPAD Office of Science and Technology.
26.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: A follow-up discussion paper. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
27.
PoliSara (2010). The commission’s new approach to the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. European Journal of Risk Regulation, (4), 339–348.
28.
PotrykusIngo (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature, 466(7306), 561.
29.
PoulterSean (2011). Cloned meat betrayal: Unlabelled dairy and beef products to go on sale here after OUR minister sabotages Europe’s call for a ban. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371329/Cloned-meat-betrayal-Unlabelled-products-sale-minister-sabotages-Europes-ban-call.html
30.
Proclamation to Ratify the Cartagena Protocol, Proclamation No. 362/2003.
31.
Reporter (Amharic) (2013). Research needed for the use of GM crops, Interview with Prof. Shibiru Tedla. Retrieved 28October2013 from http://www.ethiopianreporter.com/index.php/other-sections/social-affairs/social/item/1832
32.
RidelyMatt (2003). We’ve never had it so good—and it’s all thanks to science. Guardian, 3April2003.
33.
RifkinJeremy (2006). This crop revolution may succeed where GM failed. The Guardian, 26October2006.
34.
SateeshM. (2008). Bioethics and biosafety. New Delhi: I.K. International Ltd.
35.
ShelleyToby (2006). Nanotechnology: New promises, new dangers. London: Zed Books.
36.
SomsenHan (2008a). GMO regulation in the Netherlands: A story of hope, fear and the limits of ‘poldering’. In EversonM.VosE. (Eds), Uncertain risks regulated in national, European and international context (187–206). London: Routledge–Cavendish Publishing.
37.
SomsenHan (2008b). Cloning trojan horses: Precautionary regulation of reproductive technologies. In BrownswordRogerYeungKaren (Eds), Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes (221–242). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
38.
South Bulletin (2004). Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.southcentre.org/info/southbulletin/newsouthbulletin2004.htm
39.
StokstadErik (2006). A kinder, gentler Jeremy Rifkin endorses biotech, or does he?Science, 312(5780), 1586–1587.
40.
SunsteinCass (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
The Biofuels Journal (2009). Landmark Ethiopian biosafety legislation approved. 20 July 2009. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/landmark_ethopian__bio_safety_legislation_approved-79272.html
42.
The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/NKL_text.shtml
43.
TürkVolkerLiedtkeChrista (2007). Invisible but tangible? Societal aspects and their consideration in the advancement of a new technology. In HodgeGraeme. (Eds), New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology (67–86). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
44.
UNEP (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved 10June2013 from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163
45.
van ZwanenbergPatrick (2011). Regulatory harmonization and agricultural biotechnology in Argentina and China: Critical assessment of state-centred and decentred approaches. Regulation & Governance, 5.
46.
Wamboga-MugiryaPeter (2008). Museveni urges science journalists to plug knowledge gap. Retrieved 12June2013 from http://www.scidev.net/en/news/museveni-urges-science-journalists-to-plug-knowled.html
