BIOTECHNOLOGY / BIOSAFETY PLANNING PROCESS CORAF BIOTECHNOLOGY / BIOSAFETY PLANNING PROCESS 1st Working Group Meeting Report
16 - 17th February 2004, Dakar, Senegal
----------------------------------
Reporters: NN Diop, SK Offei, Y.K. Gassama-Dia, J. Ouedraogo and O. Koita
Compiled by: H. Roy-Macauley and W. S. Alhassan
---------------------------------
This report documents events of the 1st Working Group meeting of the CORAF/WECARD biotechnology/biosafety planning process that took place on the 16th and 17th February 2004 in Dakar, Senegal. It is an attempt to capture the output of the meeting. This report is also meant to be a reference document for CORAF/WECARD, participants and interested partners. It contains a summary of the presentations, details of which are found in the annexes to this report.
DAY ONE - 16TH FEBRUARY 2004 Session 1. Chairman - Paco Sérémé Introduction of the Chairman - Marcel Nwalozie, Scientific coordinator CORAF/WECARD
The meeting started at 9h30 with the introduction of the Chairman of the session, Paco Sérémé, who is the Executive Secretary of CORAF/WECARD. The chairman welcomed the participants and then introduced the moderator of the meeting, Walter Alhassan, who is the Coordinator of the ABSPII/PBS sponsored CORAF/WECARD Biotechnology and Biosafety planning process. He also noted the presence of Larry Beach, the USAID Biotechnology Technical Adviser, Johan Brink and Pat Traynor, the ABSPII and PBS programs representatives, respectively.
Moderator’s opening remarks – Walter Alhassan (Annex 1)
The remarks concerned the purpose of the meeting, which is to plan the process of introducing biotechnology under a CORAF/WECARD umbrella, to solve the region’s agricultural problems in a safe and cost effective manner.
This was followed by a presentation of the historical perspectives leading to the planning process. This included the prioritization of areas for agricultural research in the CORAF/WECARD 2000-2014 Strategic Plan and the mention in the plan of Biotechnology as a Transverse Theme with regards to the management of genetic and biotechnological resources. He noted that, however, no specific areas were identified for its application nor modalities defined for regional cooperation in the use of the technology. This led to an IITA sponsored study in 2000 carried out by W. Alhassan on the Status of Agricultural Biotechnology in 5 countries in West and Central Africa (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal).
Through the prompting by CORAF/WECARD, and partly fuelled by the support ASARECA was receiving to develop a sub-regional mechanism for the introduction of biotechnology and biosafety, a more extensive study including 2 additional countries (Burkina Faso and Mali), was carried out in 2002. This study was supported by USAID. Based on the outcome of this survey, the USAID agreed, during the 2003 FARA meeting held in Dakar, Senegal, to assist CORAF/WECARD with a planning process to develop a regional program for biotechnology and biosafety. Following the 3rd USAID All Africa biotechnology meeting in Ibadan, Nigeria in November, 2003, a Working Group (WG) was constituted to drive the planning process.
Welcome address – Larry Beach, USAID
Larry Beach thanked the Executive secretary of CORF/WECARD, Paco Sérémé, for inviting him to join the WG. He applauded CORAF/WECARD for their initiative of developing a strategy for the application of biotechnology and biosafety in the West and Central African sub-region. He also reiterated USAID’s support to the planning process. The outcome of this plan he said will further help USAID in determining the various activities in biotechnology and biosafety that will be supported.
Welcome address – Paco Sérémé, Executive Secretary CORAF/WECARD (Annex 2)
The Executive Secretary of CORAF/WECARD welcomed all the participants to the 1st CORAF/WECARD Working Group meeting for the planning of biotechnology and biosafety activities in the sub-region, and also to Dakar. He thanked them for responding to the invitation as members of the WG, which will play an important role in the planning process, initiated by CORAF/WECARD to identify the priorities of the sub-region, which will lead to the development of capacity in biotechnology and biosafety.
He thanked the USAID and especially the ABSPII and PBS programs for supporting the CORAF/WECARD initiative. He also expressed his thanks to the Coordinator of the WG for the continued technical support. Thanks were also expressed to WARDA, IDRC and INSAH for their willingness to take part in the planning process.
He congratulated NARS members of the Working Group for their choice and thanked them also for accepting to be part of the WG. With regards to that, he drew their attention to the important responsibility they have to uphold. He expressed his optimism on the quality of the group and wished the WG success in its deliberations.
Self-introduction of participants (Annexe 3)
These addresses were followed by the self-introduction of participants.
Orientation of CORAF/WECARD – Marcel Nwalozie (Annex 4)
This presentation concerned the history, mission, vision, structure and management of CORAF/WECARD.
Highlights of the CORAF/WECARD 2002 Biotechnology Survey – Walter Alhassan (Annex 5)
This presentation focused on the main points of a survey carried out by Walter Alhassan in 2002 on the status of biotechnology and biosafety application in 7 countries of the sub-region.
CORAF/WECARD vision for biotechnology – Paco Sérémé (Annex 6)
This presentation concerned the general vision of CORAF/WECARD as concerns biotechnology and biosafety application in the sub-region
Discussion These presentations were followed by discussions aimed at clarifying certain elements of the presentations. The comments, questions and responses made by the participants and the presenters are summarized below.
Question
• What is the role of the CGIAR centers in the CORAF/WECARD biotechnology and biosafety planning process?
• Did the 2002 biotechnology survey carried out by W. Alhassan deal with the status of ratification of the Cartagena protocol by countries in the sub-region? How could CORAF/WECARD contribute to making progress in the ratification of the protocol by the various countries of the sub-region?
Comment
• It would be interesting to carry out an exhaustive inventory of initiatives already developed in the sub-region concerning biotechnology and biosafety applications in order for CORAF/WECARD to better coordinate activities related to these two issues.
• The position of the private sector with regards to the adoption of biotechnology products should be made clear.
• Ethical problems related to biotechnology applications should be considered as top priority in the planning process, as clear explanations with regards to this issue will help allay existing fears.
• The Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) has already defined a common regulation for the registration of pesticides in member States. This document could serve as a reference document in the planning process.
• Since 2002 when the Biotechnology survey was done to present, there has been great improvement, especially concerning biotechnology and biosafety application awareness at the political level in the various countries. For example, a Directorate for Biotechnology has been set up in Senegal. The President of the Republic of Senegal has asked that Biotechnology be considered as the main theme during the next meeting of the National Academy of Science, which is considered as an important scientific institution in the country. Also, the development of a National Action Plan for the application of biotechnology is on-going.
Response
• The CGIAR centers can play a role in the implementation of processes with regards to biotechnology and biosafety. Though IITA and WARDA can and have assisted in developing biosafety rules, the most important question is how can these rules be implemented. Also, it should be noted that seed companies are not viable in the sub-region. Coupled with that, there is a lack of adequate infrastructure for biotechnology and biosafety. The CGIAR centers can play a role in developing capacities in these areas.
• All the countries in the sub-region have now signed the Cartagena protocol and quite a number of them have ratified it. However, even though the countries may have ratified the protocol, the problem still lies in its implementation.
• There has indeed been great development since W. Alhassan carried out the Biotechnology survey in 2002. There is, however, a need to upgrade information of the survey. With respect to this, there is a West African Biotechnology Network in creation and all new information could be integrated into their Web Site.
In concluding the discussion, the chairman of the session pointed out that after all these interventions by participants, it is important to note that this biotechnology and biosafety planning process initiated by CORAF/WECARD should end up with the development of a coherent regional program. Every participant is therefore expected to contribute to this and must be an ambassador of this vision.
Introduction of planning process and terms of references for Working Groups – Walter Alhassan, Johan Brink and Pat Traynor (Annex 7)
This presentation gave the background to the CORAF/WECARD Biotechnology/Biosafety planning process initiative. The following points were highlighted: the necessity of a regional approach to biotechnology/biosafety application, residing on the low capacity of institutions in the sub-region; and the need to strengthen this capacity through the comparative advantages of partners in the sub-region; and to harmonize biosafety regulations.
The overall objective of the planning process is to integrate biotechnology into research activities being carried out in the CORAF/WECARD sub¬-region and to develop a regional approach to biosafety regulations. The specific objectives include determining the modalities to integrate biotechnology into the regional research initiatives under CORAF/WECARD; building awareness towards a program in biotechnology and biosafety; identifying the opportunities for adapting biotechnology into existing research; determining the mechanism and structures for a regional biosafety initiative under the umbrella of CORAF/WECARD and developing work plans, budget and a full proposal for a sub-regional biotechnology and biosafety program under CORAF/WECARD for submission to financial partners.
The working group comprises a total of 29 members made up of country representation, base-center representation, ex-officio members, facilitators (ABSPII, PBS) and scientific partners. The targeted total number is 30. It should be noted that the composition of the group is balanced with respect to biotechnology and biosafety representation. The terms of reference (TOR) of the WG are to integrate biotechnology into the existing regional research networks of CORAF/WECARD and to develop and put into operation a regional biosafety initiative under the umbrella of CORAF/WECARD.
The expected output of the working group includes dialoguing with stakeholders and sensitizing the constituents on the planning process and the role of the WG; developing a CORAF/WECARD vision for biotechnology and biosafety in the sub-region; determining the objectives of subsequent programs in the area of biotechnology and biosafety; eveloping the work plan, budget and a full proposal for a regional program implementation in biotechnology and biosafety for submission to financial partners.
The WG will operate through the organization of workshops among its members and more broad-based fora involving several stakeholders, commissioning and use of briefing papers to assist with its work and contacts through e-mails, phones and faxes as appropriate.
The objectives of the biotechnology briefing paper are to identify research priorities and opportunities for integrating biotechnology into the existing research networks, to identify the relevant near term research in the international community and determine the possibilities for collaboration, to determine mechanisms of collaboration and to determine the potential impact of the research on its adopters to enable the necessary buy-in and support of financial partners.
The objectives of the biosafety briefing paper are to describe the organizational structure of a regional biosafety system, to outline the management or administrative components of a regional biosafety system, to identify mechanisms of collaboration between national, regional and other international regulatory biosafety systems and to determine the current level of manpower/expertise and make recommendations for training personnel.
With regards to the time frame, the coordinator shall, after the first WG meeting:
• receive the briefing papers from consultants 30 days after the commissioning,
• distribute briefing papers by e-mail to WG members 3 days after receiving them,
• receive comments from WG members 14 days after distribution of the briefing papers to them,
• collate reactions to papers and go back to consultants if necessary 7 days after receipt of the reactions from the WG,
• receive final draft from consultant 7 days after dispatch by e-mail to the consultant,
• distribute revised briefing papers to WG members electronically within 3 days of receipt,
• call a 2nd WG meeting to prepare for the follow up stakeholder meeting,
• allow 60 days from commissioning of briefing paper to receipt of final draft,
• make sure both biotechnology and biosafety briefing papers are commissioned at the 1st WG meeting.
• organize a first stakeholder meeting for biotechnology and second stakeholder meeting for biosafety.
The planning process dates proposed are as follows:
• First WG Meeting: February16 to 18, 2004 in Dakar, Senegal (firm)
• Second WG Meeting: May, 2004 at Bamako, Mali or Nigeria
• First Stakeholder meeting: June, 2004 at IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria
• Second Stakeholder meeting: August, 2004 at Accra, Ghana
• 3rd and Final WG meeting: September, 2004 at Dakar, Senegal
• Submission of Biotechnology/Biosafety sub-regional proposal to CORAF/WECARD: October, 2004
Maximum cooperation from WG members is required in order to carry this process through.
Orientation process on biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - Johan Brink, ABSP II (Annex 8)
This presentation focused on biotechnology. IPR issues were presented in a subsequent session.
The presentation started with a definition of biotechnology as the utilization of a biological system, which could be plant, animal or microorganisms, to produce a product. The ABSPII program focuses on Agricultural Biotechnology. The presentation highlighted the way Agricultural Biotechnology can help developing countries by improving food and nutritional security, promoting sustainable agriculture, empowering the rural sector, reducing economic inequity, increasing crop productivity, reducing crop damage, reducing food loss and improving food safety. The burden of meeting the increased demand for food crops will however lie on the improvement of crop productivity on less land. This has to be linked with the sensible application of agrochemicals, good farm management practices, breeding of high yielding varieties and sustainable irrigation.
Plant biotechnology could be a useful tool to improve crop productivity. In this area, two broad subject disciplines can be identified: plant tissue culture, which involves culturing plant tissue, organs or cells on an artificial growth medium and plant molecular biology, which is biology at the DNA level. Plant molecular biology includes techniques such as molecular markers, marker assisted breeding and transgenic applications. These technologies could be applied to insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, virus resistance, fungal resistance, tolerance to abiotic stress and to addressing micronutrient deficiencies.
A comprehensive approach and an enabling policy environment for the adoption of Agricultural Biotechnology will lead to economic growth, food security and improved nutrition. This approach involves capacity building in biosafety, IPR issues, national and international market and trade issues, communication and outreach, public/private sector partnerships and linkages. Public concerns about modern Agricultural Biotechnology should also be taken into consideration. This includes environmental concern, food safety, mistrust of the regulatory system and science, moral and ethical concerns, control of food and farming by multinational co-operations and perceived doubts about its usefulness.
Finally it should be noted that modern biotechnology and its products (GM products) is not a silver bullet or a quick fix to solve the world’s poverty and food security problems. When combined with conventional approaches, it can go a long way in the improvement of crop productivity. It however needs a new way of thinking, organization and communication.
Orientation process on biosafety – Pat Traynor PBS (Annex 9) It should be noted that though the presentations on the orientation process of biotechnology and biosafety have been made separately, these are inseparable entities. The biosafety objectives could be defined depending on whether the approach is national or regional. At the national level, the objective will be to allow the country and its people to gain the benefits of biotechnology without imposing unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and biodiversity. At the regional level, the objective will be defined from the outcome of this meeting.
At the national level, the UNEF-GEP project has facilitated the development of national biosafety frameworks. This has resulted in national inventories of biotechnology research, biosafety progress and legislation, development of a roster of experts, the drafting of legal instruments/guidelines, the set up of administrative systems, systems for risk assessment and management and identification of country needs for Biosafety Clearing-House. The implementation phase is to follow in some countries.
A biosafety framework involves legal instrument (laws, regulations or guidelines), administrative framework and procedures, mechanisms for public and stakeholder involvement in decision-making and communication and access to information for all interested parties. However, there may be pitfalls in biosafety development, and this may be related to the poor timing in the drafting of laws and regulations and awareness creation.
The challenges involved in the development of a biosafety framework are lack of political commitment, inadequate and unstable funding and difficulty in coordinating across Ministries, agencies and overlapping legal authorities.
In the implementation of biosafety, goals have to be set with respect to feasibility, transparency, accountability, flexibility and consistency. The process is typically not linear, reactive and often uncoordinated.
It can take years to develop policies, laws and regulations. Therefore, in the absence of a framework, interim processes should be set up. These will allow research and testing activities to be carried out in order to answer to concerns about safety mechanisms that will allow research to proceed subjected to appropriate safety measures and risk assessment associated with small-scale field tests.
In the light of these elements, a regional objective will be to facilitate access and use of biotechnology in countries lacking sufficient national capacities and resources to support national efforts in meeting obligations under the International Biosafety Protocol, to capitalize on economies of scale and to foster regulatory harmonization within the region.
The CORAF/WECARD Planning and Support for Biosafety should seek to add value to national initiatives, promote regional regulatory harmonization and raise common awareness and understanding of policy makers.
A Regional Strategy would be to support, not replace, national decision-making bodies, build on existing elements and adopt an incremental, multi-faceted approach. This will take the form of initial small, defined objectives, to which new dimensions will be added over time.
The likely areas of regional activity would be technical assistance, training especially in risk assessment and risk management for National Biosafety Committees, Institutional Biosafety Committees, monitoring procedures for regulators and communication skills for spokespersons and also in the area of information and communication, including document translation, new materials (bilingual) and regional databases.
New tools for national systems will include checklists for content of legal documents, regulations or guidelines; templates for application forms, field test procedures, inspection and monitoring reports; non-safety concerns including regional policy seminars to address economic impacts and impact on society
The challenges of regional programs include differences in biosafety status and national priorities. In conclusion therefore, capacity building in biosafety should be carried out simultaneously at the national and regional levels. Goals and approaches should be identified at each level. The CORAF/WECARD planning process is critical for efficient and effective regional program for biosafety development and implementation.
Discussion
The presentation of these papers were followed by discussions. The questions, responses, and remarks are summarized below.
Question
• There is a cause for concern with regards to the development of a regional biosafety framework. One cannot doubt the difficulties involved in persuading a country to give up its sovereignty with respect to a regional framework. However, in the case of the common regulation for the registration of pesticides, this has been achieved. Is it therefore possible to envisage the same scenario in the case of the biosafety framework.
Response
• The answer to this question will certainly come from the deliberations of the WG and the stakeholder meeting. It is possible but the issue is rather how long it will take to get to that point
Question
• Can the presenter give an idea of the cost of commercializing Bt potato?
Response
• Only one transgenic product has been commercialized (Papaya in Hawaii). However, Bt potato might be one of the first products developed by the public sector to be commercialized. The cost would be around 1 to 1,5 million dollars over a four-year period.
Question
• In the interim of developing the regional framework something needs to be done. Can Pat Traynor give some indications on this?
Response
• The setting up of interim processes would prevent things/work from coming to a standstill. This would also allow scientists to move ahead with research work (risk assessment evaluation) and allow applications to be approved.
Question
• To what extent is the private sector involved in the commercialization of biotechnology products in Africa?
Response
• Only in very few countries in Africa are private sectors involved in the commercialization of biotechnology products. However, the local private seed sector could be strengthened. In the case of animal biotechnology, vaccine development and diagnostic tests could also be strengthened.
Comment
• Quite recently, the Heads of member States of CILSS reaffirmed their willingness to support initiatives in biotechnology and biosafety applications. There is therefore a possibility that they will let go of their sovereignty with respect to the existence of a regional biosafety framework.
• The model law of the African Union (AU) relative to biotechnology and biosafety applications contains a number of elements that are contested. These contestations could be resolved through a regional forum with the creation of a regional biosafety framework.
Chairman’s concluding remarks
The various presentations and the ensuing discussions have led to a better understanding of the need of CORAF/WECARD to develop a strategy for biotechnology and biosafety application in the sub-region. The way forward should be outlined through the drafting by the WG of the TOR of the briefing papers in biotechnology and biosafety.
Session 2. Chairman - Abdourahaman Sangare
Chairman’s opening remarks The objectives of the second session were presented by the chairman. This concerned the determination of the scope and commissioning of briefing papers. He announced that the participants would not longer be divided into 2 separate groups as indicated in the program and that discussions on both the biotechnology and biosafety briefing papers will occur in the plenary. This would address the problem of getting extra interpreters with equipment to cover 2 sessions.
Introduction of topic – Determining the scope and commissioning of the Biotechnology
briefing paper by Johan Brink (Annex 10) The necessity for commissioning the briefing papers was outlined. This included building on the foundation of the existing information and situation on biotechnology and biosafety in the sub-region, assisting the WG in their decision making by documenting potential opportunities that can have relevance to the region, analyzing and prioritizing these opportunities and linking it to the existing priority crops and constraints of the region and providing the WG with a synthetic document that analyses the need and desire for national and regional biosafety regulatory systems.
A brief introduction of some key issues to be considered in formulating the TOR for consultants who will be engaged in writing the papers were presented. The consultants should understand the scope of the role of CORAF/WECARD. This includes familiarizing with baseline information on the organization of CORAF/WECARD, its research priority setting process and priorities, its operational units, knowledge on biotechnology tools in use in the sub-region, based on the 2002 biotechnology survey and any other available document, the status of biosafety in the continent and in the West and Central African sub-region in particular. Knowledge on Agricultural Biotechnology in the other sub-regions such as the ASERACA region, will also be helpful. The purpose of the paper will be to identify specific opportunities and develop a short prioritized list of biotechnology research and development, adaptation of existing technologies or technology transfer that will lead to the application of biotechnology in addressing priority constraints in the region.
A draft TOR based on experiences gained during the formulation and commissioning of briefing papers for ASARECA could be used as a basis for discussion on the subject. Based on this draft TOR, some important points to be considered were mentioned by the presenter. The TOR should lead to the identification of specific opportunities for research adaptation of existing technologies or technology transfer that will lead to the application of biotechnology in addressing priority constraints in the region. The consultant should be able to define the criteria for setting priorities. This should be based on information on the CORAF/WECARD priority commodities and constraints that have already been identified. The likelihood of impact of the development of improved varieties should be analyzed. Some socio-economic analyses are also recommended. A time scale of approximately 5 years should be set. The scope of biotechnologies and the application of technologies to the CORAF/WECARD sub-region should be defined. It should be noted that this was left out of the TOR of the ASERACA planning process and caused great difficulty in the planning process. Examples of biotechnology opportunities should be outlined with major speculation and constraints. Policy issues must be addressed from the very beginning of the projects. The WG should eventually revise the recommendations made by the consultants.
Discussion
A discussion was generated among the participants on aspects and issues to be included in the TOR of the consultant. Various issues were discussed with emphasis put on constraints and crop priorities in the sub-region. With regards to the scope of biotechnology application, it was agreed that the study should be considered under three main areas: biotechnology applied to crop production; biotechnology applied to animal production and cellular and microbial biotechnology. It was also agreed that the key constraints and priority crops should be those identified by CORAF/WECARD. The TOR of the consultant should be defined so that the final reports can be assessed based on benchmarks set indicated in the TOR.
The WG should produce a short list of potential consultants for further consultation and commissioning. With regards to the expertise of the potential consultant, He/she should have a biotechnology background and the capacity to synthesize information already available, and produce a report within the time schedule set in the program of activities of the WG.
A four–man committee comprising Johan Brink, Walter Alhassan, Gnissa Konate and Sam Offei, was appointed to work on the draft of the TOR. This draft was to be discussed by the WG by mid-morning of 17th February 2004. Members of the WG with documents related to Biotechnology were asked to make them available to the committee.
Biosafety briefing paper by Pat Traynor (Annex 11)
The biosafety briefing paper is a tool to facilitate development of a regional program for biosafety. Its objectives will be to describe what would comprise a regional biosafety program, to identify strategies that are amenable to a regional approach, to identify specific opportunities for regional interventions, to determine what should/could/can be done through CORAF/WECARD and to make recommendations for priority actions.
To achieve this, a stocktaking should /could be done emphasizing on where we are at now and where we want to be. Some of the issues to be considered include, what is wanted, what is feasible and where the regional/national boundary is.
The TOR should border on what data to collect, how to analyze the data, how to set priorities, the nature of the recommendations, the expected use of the output, the time line and the support the paper will give to the WG. The criteria for selecting the consultant should be carefully defined. This includes information on professional qualification, skills and experience and availability.
Discussion
The chairman of the session stressed the importance of thinking on preliminary issues before the definition of the TOR. During the discussion sessions remarks, questions and responses were provided by the participants and presenters. These are summarized below.
Remarks
• A thorough review of what exists in the region concerning biosafety applications should be made. The weaknesses of biosafety processes should be outlined and the regional program should try to strengthen these weaknesses and harmonize the several differences which might exists in the sub-region.
• There are already examples of common rules and regulations in the sub-region. Reference should be made to the CILSS regulation on pesticides. With these documents it should not take much in developing a sub-regional biosafety framework.
• At the national level, biosafety frameworks are being put in place. However, due to the ease with which products can be transferred through country borders in the sub–region, it is important that a sub-regional biosafety program be developed. The CILSS regulation on pesticide could be taken as a reference. A Sahel Pesticide Committee has been set up to harmonize the rules concerning the registration of pesticides. The application of the rules and regulations is difficult but strategies are being set to facilitate the process. This involves the creation of national and supranational committees. Other regional fora of the sort could also be referred to in setting up the sub-regional biosafety framework.
• The AU model law on biotechnology and biosafety application is important in this respect. In fact quite a number of countries are using elements of this law to set up their biosafety framework. The consultant should therefore analyze the positive aspects of this law and use it in making recommendations to the sub-region.
• It should be noted that the AU model law is not necessarily applicable. Emphasis should rather be put on the Cartegena protocol, which has been signed and ratified by countries in the sub-region. This protocol should be more adhered to.
• The UNEP-GEF is funding projects for the development of biosafety frameworks in several countries. These documents should serve as references for the consultant.
• It might be necessary to hire 2 instead of 1 consultant, who will form a team to carry out the study. One of the consultants will identify the results acquired from the UNEP-GEF projects. This will serve as a starting point for the activities. The other will carry out an expertise on policy issues. The needs at the national level will be analyzed and extrapolated to the sub-regional level. An exchange will also be necessary between the 2 consultants.
• The consultants should recommend procedures for the harmonization of the different rules and regulations. CORAF/WEARD could be considered as an organ that implements the harmonization of the various existing legislation on biosafety.
• It should be noted that the ECOWAS has created a technical committee that is charged with the task of harmonization legislations with regards to biosafety. The consultants should contact this committee.
• The Economic and Monetary Union of West Africa and the ECOWAS both recognize CORAF as the sub-regional body responsible for facilitating agricultural research and development. Within the framework of a dialogue between these various bodies, CORAF can make technical inputs and involve key stakeholders in decision-making at the national level, who can contribute to harmonizing and creating coherent biosafety rules and regulations.
• The conflicts existing between the Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries, as regards their competency in treating biosafety issues should be considered as this could be transposed to the regional level. For example, two neighboring countries Benin and Burkina Faso, have ratified the Cartagena Protocol. They do not, however, have any rules and regulations in place, whilst one of the countries is now testing Bt Cotton.
• Some important collaborators that could be included in the process are John Innes Centre, Gatsby foundation and Japan as financial partners. They have contributed immensely to work carried out in the sub-region on biotechnology and biosafety.
Question
• What type of analysis will be carried out on the data collected by the consultant?
Response
• The analysis will depend on the identified objectives. For example, in the case of the pesticide rules it will be necessary to check whether or not there are conflicts with respect to other laws.
Question
• At the regional level, what type of mechanism should be put in place to develop a biosafety framework?
Response
• The mechanism to be put in place could be viewed at 2 levels: decision-making body and risk assessment evaluation. The states will accept to give up their sovereignty. In this case, it is the decision-making body at the regional level that will guide the technical tools (centers of excellence) capable of evaluating the biotechnology products, and that will make the necessary decisions. There should, however, be a strong link between the national bodies and this regional body in order for the rules and regulations to be effectively applied.
Question
• Can only one consultant carry out an evaluation of the existing data in the sub region taking into consideration the time frame of the study?
Response
• One consultant can do the job if the TOR and the necessary information are given to him on time.
At the end of the discussions, a four–man group comprising Yacouba Séré, Pat Traynor, Yaye Ken Gassama and Coumba Sall, was appointed to work on the Terms of Reference for the Consultant. This would be discussed by the WG by mid morning of 17th Feb 2004. Members of the WG with documents related to Biosafety were asked to make them available to the committee.
Chairman’s concluding remarks
After having made all these comments it is important to note that the role of CORAF/WECARD is to help the countries develop the means of acting and counseling the State on biotechnology and biosafety issues. This should be an important consideration when drafting the TOR.
DAY TWO - 17TH FEBRUARY 2004
Session 3. Chairman - Gnissa Konate This session concerned the reports of the two 4-man groups appointed to draft the TOR for the briefing papers on both biotechnology and biosafety. The presentation on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) was also made during this session. Following a brief introduction by the moderator of the meeting, discussions were carried out on the place, dates and participants who would take part in the next meetings and especially the second WG meeting.
Biotechnology Group Report on the TOR for the Consultant – S. Offei
In carrying out its task of drafting the TOR for the consultant, who will carry out a survey and formulate recommendations for a better utilization of biotechnology in the sub-region, the group consulted a certain number of documents put at its disposal by CORAF/WECARD. After having defined the objectives of the consultation, the group elaborated the TOR. The TOR was later presented to the plenary. The following points concerning the TOR were made clear following the discussions that ensued. The consultant will not cover all of the countries in the sub-region but will concentrate his studies on certain countries. These countries have, however, not been mentioned in the TOR. The consultant will survey the constraints and possibilities offered by biotechnology. He/she should state which of these technologies could be used. The Coordinator/Ex-officio members of the WG could make all modifications necessary to the TOR, but an extensive document would be the best for the consultant. The choice of the consultant was not addressed. This work will be carried out by the Ex-Officio members of the WG. There are, however, people with the described profile. For example, the person that did the job for ASARECA is still available. Cornell University could also be contacted to do a short list of consultants with the required profile. The Executive Secretariat of CORAF/WECARD could elaborate a list of potential consultants to choose from. The briefing papers should be available in both French and English. The draft TOR is presented below.
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR COMMISIONING A PAPER ON AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE CORAF/WECARD REGION [DRAFT Version February 2004]
Background
A year 2002 study commissioned by CORAF/WECARD and funded by the USAID on the status of the application of biotechnology in selected West and Central African countries recommended the initiation of a planning process to address issues of biotechnology and biosafety capacity building in the sub-region along the lines adopted by the ASARECA with modifications for CORAF/WECARD as appropriate.
Objectives of the CORAF/WECARD Biotechnology and Biosafety Initiative
The objectives of the planning process, which also identify the key outputs, are:
• Harness capabilities of member countries in biotechnology and encourage partnerships with advanced institutions in biotechnology to accelerate the pace of capacity building and application of the tool.
• Examine strategies and mechanism for a sub-regional biotechnology initiative.
• Determine the sub-regional priorities and framework for biotechnology integration into network programs.
• Examine sub-regional biosafety harmonization and recommend regional framework for biosafety and its integration with sanitary and phytosanitary measures in the sub-region.
• Create sub-regional awareness on Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer relating to Biotechnology.
• Make recommendations on effective public awareness on issues of biotechnology and biosafety.
• Develop work plans, budget and a full proposal for implementation of biotechnology and biosafety programs for submission to development investors/donors.
Purpose of the paper This TOR addresses the first 3 objectives. The consultant will identify specific opportunities and come up with a prioritized short list of biotechnology research and development, adaptation of existing technologies or technology transfer that will lead to the application of biotechnology in addressing priority constraints in the region. This includes identification of priorities, opportunities to adapt existing research in the international community, and using the documentation provided, indicate where the work is being done, who should be approached for future collaborations, both public and private. The paper should focus on near-term results i.e. what can be adopted/adapted to West and Central Africa within a 2 - 5 year time frame?
The paper should also analyze near-term impact of various agricultural biotechnology options to help CORAF/WECARD rally support from donors and the political caucus in the West and Central Africa region. This should put into consideration a number of potential research projects/programs including current research efforts where biotechnology applications are already under consideration. The potential impacts could be economic, social, environmental, technical, trade or health related.
Tasks
The consultant will develop a paper that clearly states what opportunities are available to CORAF/WECARD in biotechnology research and prioritize those opportunities. The paper will seek to state the relevance of biotechnology in achieving CORAF/WECARD’s goals and how they can be best achieved. The paper will give concrete examples of the identified opportunities with a clear indication of priorities.
The consultant will assist the WG in identifying priority opportunities to research and existing technologies for transfer and adaptation. The paper will survey and synthesize into a short list of priority opportunities the following:
• current CORAF/WECARD regional research priorities;
• existing research in the international community with applicability to CORAF/WECARD;
• the scope of technologies to be reviewed should include Tissue Culture, Molecular Marker Technology and Marker-Assisted Breeding, Diagnostics, Microbial Biotechnology and GM Technology applied to plants, animals and microorganisms.
The consultant should:
• review CORAF/WECARD commodity research priorities, matching commodity constraints with biotechnology opportunities,
• review Biotechnology R & D ongoing in the region (e.g. Networks),
• review Biotechnology R & D ongoing in the international community with potential relevance to regional research priorities,
• identify opportunities most appropriate for regional intervention in biotechnology,
• identify and characterize the opportunities in biotechnology research and adaptation,
• provide a table outlining the criteria for selection such as importance to region, impact of solving problem, applications available, laboratories already working on problem, NARS in the region having some capacity, etc); this would provide a justification for certain applications and qualitatively discern the commodities (crops, forest species, wild fruit trees, livestock, microbial products) and technologies to be developed,
• identify approaches to awareness creation for policy makers and the public at large on issues of biotechnology to engender confidence in the technology,
• suggest regional mechanisms for managing and coordinating biotechnology under CORAF/WECARD within the existing framework of base centers, poles and networks
• recommend mechanisms for engagement of the private sector and farmers in technology utilization.
The Consultant will attend the 2nd meeting of the CORAF/WECARD Biotechnology and Biosafety WG and present the final report for validation. The report findings will be presented by the WG in a regional workshop on biotechnology for further discussion, vetting and consensus. The output of this workshop will be a list of priorities for CORAF/WECARD’s biotechnology program.
The target audience for the paper will be the CORAF/WECARD Executive and General Assembly, the CORAF/WECARD Network Coordinators, technical experts, the NARIs that might participate in the implementation of the regional program, the private sector and potential partners outside the region and the international research community (IARCS, advanced laboratories in the USA, Europe, South Africa, etc).
Methods
This will be a desk study to develop the paper through the synthesis of existing documents as well as phone and e-mail consultations. Travel is not anticipated. In order to execute the above tasks, the consultant will use various documents including the following:
• An Inventory of Agricultural Biotechnology for Eastern and Central Africa Region; Andrea Johansson and Catherine L. Ives, ABSP
• Research priorities of CORAF/WECARD and its networks
• Agrobiotechnology Applications in West and Central Africa, Walter Alhassan
• Considering Biosafety and Biotechnology from an ASARECA perspective: Assessing the Feasibility of a Regional Initiative on Biotechnology for Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, ASARECA, prepared by IBS/ISNAR
• Biotechnology for African crops, Rockefeller Foundation, prepared by ISNAR and IITA
• National Agriculture Research systems reports
• Working Group reports
• Case study reports on coffee, banana, coconuts, maize, trees, livestock vaccines,
• ISAAA reports,
• ISNAR reports,
• ACTS reports,
• Any other relevant reports
Timetable
The assignment will take 30 working days starting on xxxxxxx, 2004 to xxxxxxx, 2004. The draft will be produced and submitted on the last day of the assignment (xxxxxx, 2004). The final report will be submitted to the Coordinator for the Biotechnology and Biosafety Planning Process, Dr Walter Alhassan, within one week of completion of the assignment (xxxxxx, 2004). Comments to the draft report by CORAF/WECARD would be submitted to the consultant within two weeks after submission of the draft report (xxxxx, 2004). The consultant will submit the final report to Dr Alhassan, who will in turn pass it on to CORAF/WECARD, after incorporating the relevant comments by xxxxxx, 2004.
Dr Alhassan will:
• receive the briefing papers from consultants a month after the commissioning,
• distribute briefing papers by e-mail to Working Group members,
• receive comments from Working Group members two weeks after distribution of the briefing papers,
• collate reactions to papers and go back to consultants if necessary,
• distribute revised briefing papers to Working Group members electronically,
• hire additional hand to assist with review of papers and compilations,
• hire additional secretarial staff to record and instantly produce minutes of Working Group meetings. Such additional secretarial help shall be hired for stakeholder meetings as well.
The Consultant
The individual should have a PhD degree in a biotechnology-related field and have a verifiable track record in international development having been engaged in similar assignments for at least 5 years. He/she should also be familiar with the topics enumerated in the task schedule. Knowledge of CORAF/WECARD operations and activities will be an added advantage.
Expected Outputs
A report will be the major output of this assignment. It will present the WG with a prioritized list of options for biotechnology projects, whose results should be near-term, technically feasible, have significant potential impact in the region. The report will also clearly state who should be approached for future collaborations.
Remuneration and Logistics
The consultant will be remunerated according to the CORAF/WECARD regulations and budget. The CORAF/WECARD secretariat will provide reference documents and other logistics.
Biosafety Group Report on the TOR for the Consultant – Pat Traynor The regional approach was given priority in defining the objectives of the process. Based on documents presented by the participants, the group proceeded with the elaboration of the TOR, which was presented to the plenary. The presentation was followed by discussions on various points that should be considered in the TOR.
The consultant should indicate what could be accomplished within a time frame of 2 to 5 years. The consultant must compile information on the status of biosafety in the different countries of the sub-region. He/she should review the possibilities, both at the national and international levels, the existing potentials and the human resources that could take part in the stakeholders meeting.
The consultant should review the similarities and differences existing in the different countries’ biosafety legislations and explore the possibility of harmonizing these differences. With regards to this, the consultant must make recommendations on the opportunities and strategies for the development of a Regional Technical Body that will liaise with Biosafety Committees put in place at the national level. The issue of political differences must not be neglected. The consultant must contact the Regional Biosafety Committees put in place by the African Union (AU). This will allow him/her to better harmonize the national legislations and tend towards a sub-regional or even African legislation.
The report of the consultant will be discussed during the second CORAF/WECARD WG meeting. He/she should also engage in communication by telephone/e-mail, and if necessary will travel to get more information. He will have at his disposal documents pertaining to biosecurity (those of the UNEP-GEF projects, the regulations on pesticides and seeds, all sub-regional rules and regulations, the AU model law and the regulations on GMOs etc.).
The group also proposed the profile of the consultant who should not necessarily have a PhD. The question of whether or not the person should have a law degree was brought up but the group made no final decision.
The consultant will be provided with available documents on the subject and will also make contact with resource persons whom he/she will contact. The person must also consult Web Sites of International Research Centers and the strategic plans of national and international research institutes.
It is necessary that the consultant participate at the second CORAF/WECARD WG meeting. The Coordinator of the WG will present the consultant’s report at the stakeholders meeting.
The TOR, taking into consideration the observations of the participants, is presented below.
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A CONSULTANCY ON AGRICULTURAL BIOSAFETY IN THE CORAF/WECARD REGION [DRAFT Version February 17, 2004]
Background
The material presented here is the same as for the Biotechnology Group.
Objectives of the CORAF/WECARD Biotechnology and Biosafety Initiative
This is as for the Biotechnology Group but is repeated to allow identification of the relevant TORs.
The objectives of the planning process, which also identify the key outputs, are therefore:
• Harness capabilities of member countries in biotechnology and encourage partnerships with advanced institutions in biotechnology to accelerate the pace of capacity building and application of the tool.
• Examine strategies and mechanism for a sub-regional biotechnology initiative.
• Determine the sub-regional priorities and framework for biotechnology integration into network programs.
• Examine sub-regional biosafety harmonization and recommend regional framework for biosafety and its integration with sanitary and phytosanitary measures in the sub-region.
• Create sub-regional awareness on Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer relating to Biotechnology.
• Make recommendations on effective public awareness on issues of biotechnology and biosafety.
• Develop work plans, budget and a full proposal for implementation of biotechnology and biosafety programs for submission to development investors/donors.
Purpose and Scope of the Study
This TOR addresses objectives 4 and 6 above. The commissioned paper is intended to be a tool to facilitate development of a regional initiative in biosafety. It is to:
• describe what would comprise a regional biosafety initiative;
• identify strategies for building biosafety capacity that are amenable to a regional approach;
• identify specific opportunities for regional interventions to build biosafety capacity;
• determine what could be accomplished through CORAF/WECARD,
• make specific recommendations for priority actions.
The paper should focus on near-term results i.e. what can be implemented in West and Central Africa within a 2 - 5 year time frame.
Tasks
1. The consultant is to compile information on:
• current status of national biosafety development
• policies, laws, regulations and guidelines
• establishment of a national biosafety committee and its members
• extent of training conducted
• advances under UNEP-GEF projects
• available capacities for implementation (technical, administrative, infrastructure, financial resources)
• current biosafety support activities being conducted by institutions in the region (CILSS, IITA, ICRAF, IPGRI, WARDA, etc.) and international organizations (USAID, Rockefeller, FAO, Bi-lateral donors, Gatsby Foundation, etc.)
2. The consultant is to identify:
• key biosafety stakeholders in each country,
• discrepancies between existing national regulations or guidelines,
• opportunities for CORAF/WECARD interventions.
3. The consultant is to explore modalities for and acceptability of a regional technical body to provide guidance and make recommendations to National Biosafety Committees. He/she should also look into existing regional structures to ascertain what is feasible.
4. The consultant is to make recommendations for:
• a strategic plan to harmonize national biosafety regulations within the region,
• establishment of a regional technical body to provide guidance and make recommendations to National Biosafety Committees,
• other mechanisms for regional coordination, cooperation, harmonization.
5. The consultant will attend the 2nd CORAF Working Group meeting in May.
The target audience
The target audience for the paper is the CORAF/WECARD Executive and General Assembly, the CORAF/WECARD Network Coordinators, the CORAF/WECARD Scientific and Technical Committee and biosafety specialists who might participate in the implementation of a regional biosafety initiative.
The report will be discussed by the WG at its second meeting in Bamako, Mali. After subsequent revisions as deemed necessary, the report will be presented at a regional stakeholders meeting in Ibadan, Nigeria for further discussion and endorsement. The output of this meeting will be strategic plan for developing and implementing CORAF/WECARD’s regional biosafety initiative.
Methods
The consultancy is a desk study to develop the paper through the synthesis of already existing documents as well as phone and email consultations. Travel is not anticipated. In order to execute the above tasks, the consultant will use various documents including the following:
• Regulatory Status and Regional Biosafety Regulatory Mechanism and Administration Under ASARECA (Muffy Koch, 2001)
• UNEP-GEF Project work plans and progress reports from individual countries
• Common Phytosanitary Regulations (CILSS)
• Sahelian Committee on Pesticides (CILSS)
• Seed Harmonization Process (CILSS)
• Model Law of OAU (African Union)
• CILSS study on rules and regulations for movement of GMOs within the Sahel (Terms of Reference and draft report)
• CORAF/WECARD Strategic Plan
• Strategic Framework for Food Security for Sahelian Countries 2004-2015
Contacts in the region
• Dr. XYZ
• Prof. ABC
Timetable
The assignment will take 30 working days starting on xxxxxxx, 2004 to xxxxxxx, 2004. The draft will be produced and submitted to the Executive Secretary of CORAF/WECARD on the last day of the assignment (xxxxxx, 2004). The final report will be submitted to the Executive Secretary CORAF/WECARD and to the Coordinator of the Biotechnology and Biosafety Working Group, Dr Walter Ahassan, within one week of completion of the assignment (xxxxxx, 2004). Comments on the draft report by CORAF/WECARD will be submitted to the consultant within one week after submission of the draft report (xxxxx, 2004). The consultant will submit the final report to CORAF/WECARD incorporating the relevant comments by xxxxxx, 2004.
Qualifications
Professional qualifications
• An M.Sc. or higher degree in a relevant field (biological sciences, agriculture, Law??
• Minimum 10 years development work in West and Central Africa
Skills and experience
• Knowledge of biotechnology and/or biosafety systems and regulations
• Experience in conducting similar multi-country assessments is preferable
• Familiarity with operations of CORAF/WECARD or similar regional bodies is desirable
• Excellent writing skills
Expected Outputs
A report will be the major output of this assignment. It will present the WG with a prioritized list of options for regional harmonization of biosafety as well as determine who should be approached for future collaborations.
Remuneration and Logistics
The consultant will receive a professional fee in accord with CORAF/WECARD regulations and budget.
The CORAF/WECARD Secretariat / Biosafety Working Group will:
• provide written and/or electronic copies of background and supporting documents listed above as well as others deemed relevant,
• facilitate the consultant’s work by making initial contact with the individuals identified above to familiarize them with the nature and purpose of the consultancy and to request their timely cooperation.
Intellectual property rights - Johan Brink (Annex 12)
This presentation outlined the points on the fundamental of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the activities of the ABSP-II program with respect to IPR and technology transfer.
The different comments, questions and responses that came up in the discussions are summarized below.
Comments
• For the information of participants, seminars on IPR are being organized under the auspices of Michigan State University.
• It will be necessary to have precise information on the organizations within the sub-region working in the area of IPR.
• The countries in the region are at different levels with regards to IPR. Developing a regional approach might be a better option.
• Based on his experience working with a seed company, Larry Beach will be happy to provide useful information on the topic of IPR for those who are interested.
• IPR is an area that needs to be treated by the WG but not in isolation. IPGRI and ISNAR have organized courses on the topic and these are available on CD-ROM.
• A workshop on IPR will be organized in March in Senegal. ABSPII is ready to co-sponsor the workshop. However ABSPII has to get CORAF’s agreement for it to be involved.
Question
• At what point in the planning process should CORAF/WECARD integrate this aspect?
Response
• ABSPII will work with CORA/WECARD on this issue and not with individual countries. During the next WG meeting, a session on IPR could be included and this could be a good opportunity of starting the process. Relevant stakeholders could be invited.
The participants agreed that discussions on IPR issues should start as soon as possible sometime this year. It was recommended that a specialist in the area make a more detailed presentation on IPR issues during the second CORAF/WECARD WG meeting.
Introduction of days activities – Walter Alhassan (Annex 13)
Since all outstanding issues have already been dealt with during the preceding session, the objective of this final session will be to plan the future activities. This will include planning for the second CORAF/WECARD WG meeting and stakeholders forum.
The moderator proposed that for the second WG meeting discussions be held mainly on the briefing papers and any other business. With respect to the latter, IPR issues could be discussed.
He noted that the time frame for meetings was very tight however this and the venue could be discussed by the WG. He said that some people are proposing the organization of a single stakeholders meeting programmed as follows: Day 1 – biotechnology issues, Day 2 – biosafety issues, Day 3 – integration of the two groups, Day 4 – WG synthetic meeting). He noted that all amendments made should be within the limit of the planning process budget of US$ 430,000.
Suggestions were also made concerning the participants in the Stakeholders forum.
Discussion
Comment
• It will be difficult to combine the two stakeholders meeting on biotechnology and biosafety because there are two identified sponsors, and budget lines have already been defined. The group has to be realistic in considering the time frame of the whole process and the suggestion of involving sponsors as part of the planning process. This has to be discussed with USAID.
• The following should be added to the list of sponsors as they have also been involved in biotechnology and biosafety work in the sub region: Gatsby Foundation, European Union. NGOs such as the World Vision should also be involved in the stakeholders meeting.
• The participation of 20 members of the WG will be sponsored by the planning process funds. However, in this group there is no institution representing research work on animals. ICT and CIRDES must, therefore, also form part of the WG. For the stakeholders meeting, the Farmer Organizations Network in Africa, TV channels such as TV5 and other TV channels in the Anglophone region must also be invited. Other institutions such as CILSS, Economic and Monetary Union of West Africa, ECOWAS and its counterpart in Central Africa, should be invited to participate in these meetings.
• A representative of the African Union, representatives of Universities, the IDRC, the coordinator for Genetic Resource Policy Issues (GRPI), who will be based at CORAF, should be included in the list of participants in the stakeholders meeting.
Reaction
• The idea of merging the stakeholders meeting was to save time and reduce cost. A dialogue between sponsors might help to solve the problem. If it is not possible, then the WG will have to stick to holding the 2 stakeholders meetings.
• Most of the new groups mentioned could not form part of the WG but their contributions could be meaningful. The invitation of TV Channels will be based on the objectives of what they will be covering. They will not be taking part in decision-making processes. The countries must decide the choice of universities. It is a good suggestion to bring in CIRDES and ICT to the WG.
• It will be a very good idea to merge the 2 stakeholders meeting, logistics permitting, so that the two types of stakeholders could be captured at the same time. This will result in a more efficient meeting. A way of apportioning the funds has to be defined. With regards to the list of additional participants mentioned, the WG has to ensure that the stakeholders invited will make significant and positive contribution to the cause. If representatives of the AU, the Conference of Agricultural Ministers, ECOWAS etc, are being invited, it is because we are sure that their participation is important to the process. Therefore, to ensure that they come to the meetings, CORAF/WECARD should pay for their participation. ROPA is a network and is not universal. Moreover, it is limited to Francophone countries. Their participation is welcome. However, another producer organization more representative of the region than ROPA should also be invited.
• Whether or not one or two meetings are to be organized, the size of the participants should be manipulated to reduce costs.
• If our purpose is to eventually develop a program for developing capacity, then it makes sense to bring in other financial partners. The USAID has no problems with regards to that.
• We should also think of inviting the focal point representatives of the UNEP-GEF biosafety programs and the representatives of country biotechnology committees.
• For countries such as Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which are still not represented in the WG, it is important that members of the WG help the coordinator in identifying representatives to the WG and the stakeholders meeting.
• With regards to the view of holding 1 or 2 meetings, it seems important first of all to plan the agenda of the meeting. The objectives and the expected results have to be defined and these will inform on the type of people, the number and will help shape the program of the meeting. A 3-day program as follows seems to be alright: Day 1 – Plenary session with presentations; Day 2 – Division into two groups (biotechnology and biosafety) to discuss issues; Day 3 – Reconvening in plenary to present findings which could be validated. It is suggested that an expert on international agreements be invited to make a presentation.
• The idea of holding two stakeholder meetings was motivated by the fact that the stakeholders for biotechnology and biosafety are different. However, if we are looking for complementarities, then the organization of one meeting has to be properly planned. Funding of activities of the planning process has already started and the decision of funding was based on activities. We therefore have to be very careful on the way we plan our activities. The final decision on the number of meetings to be held has to be made in this meeting so that partitioning of the budget could be worked out.
• Budgetary questions as regards organization of 1 or 2 meetings could be solved when financial justifications on the activities of the meeting are being made.
• It would be advantageous to combine the two meetings on biotechnology and biosafety because there is always the tendency of separating reflections on the two issues. Moreover there is a political dimension often neglected, which should be taken into consideration.
• The planning process was initiated with the USAID and should be pursued to the end with USAID. To implement the activities which will be identified during this process it is important that we start at the very beginning by including as many financial partners as possible. The steering committee should therefore work on the process of bringing together all the relevant financial partners.
• The Regional USAID has committed a substantial amount of funds for biosafety in the sub-region. Pat Traynor is in the process of developing a work plan. A substantial amount of this fund should go towards the CORAF/WECARD planning process. However, to move the process forward, a proposal of the stakeholder forum should be developed so that she can take it onboard to facilitate the process.
• With regards to the preceding comments, it is possible for CORAF/WECARD to define the objectives and expected outputs and the agenda of the meeting before the end of the month.
• Still with regards to the preceding comment on the Regional USAID funding, a portion of that fund has been committed to funding this planning process. ABSPII was supposed to fund this WG meeting, the first Stakeholder meeting and part of the remuneration of the Assistant coordinator. PBS was to fund a WG meeting as well as a stakeholder meeting on biosafety.
• The overall objective of USAID is to fund the planning process to the end. How the funds will be split up are administrative issues that will eventually be worked out.
• The Executive Secretariat of CORAF/WECARD and the steering committee should define the objectives and expected results of the various meetings.
Question
• The group in Tuskegee expressed their wish to collaborate with CORAF/WECARD. However they were also planning to strengthen biotechnology capacity in the sub-region. What does Larry Beach think they will be bringing along to CORAF/WECARD?
Response
• Though it is all USAID’s money, the question cannot be answered. Their plans for Nigeria have been set and that could not possibly be changed. The possibility, however, still remains that they can add value to it.
Wrap up presentation on the 1st Working Group Meeting
• Date and place of the second WG meeting – beginning of June 2004 in Bamako, Mali.
• The stakeholders meeting on biotechnology and biosecurity will be merged.
• Date and place of the Stakeholders meeting – August 2004 at Ibadan, Nigeria. This date was supported because it would give the consultants enough time to submit the briefing papers.
• A tentative total of 125 people will participate at the stakeholders meeting.
• It will be necessary to extend the stakeholders meeting by one more day for the WG to analyze the outcome of the meeting.
Closing remarks
Moderator – Walter Alhassan
The deliberations of the day have already been summarized by the chairman of the session. However, the moderator expressed that the WG has, in 2 days, defined the draft TOR for the briefing papers and a calendar for the next meetings. The WG has not been able to choose the consultants, however, this will be done within the next 2 to 3 weeks.
This inaugural WG session has been a success and he is quite happy about the outcome of the deliberations. He hopes that the process will help in reaching the objectives defined with respect to food security in the sub-region. He expressed his thanks to all the participants.
Johan Brink
He expressed his pleasure to be involved in the WG meeting. This is the first of these meetings and a major one. These deliberations will form the framework for the follow-up activities, which will allow us to reach our objectives. Enormous progress has indeed been made.
He also realized that the group is made up of very good people that could be relied upon. As long as everyone in the group thinks it is the best thing they are doing for the region, then he is quite sure everyone will stay committed. He expressed his thanks to all the participants, to the organizers, the ES of CORAF/WECARD, Paco Sérémé, as well as to Walter Alhassan in particular, for the leadership in proposing a framework for the process.
Larry Beach
He expressed his thanks to all for the very hard work accomplished by making an analogy to going down a path that has never been trodden. He expressed his commitment on behalf of USAID to the planning process. He said that this process is an example of USAID’s idea of working on something effective for the sub-region. USAID is committed to help carrying forward the planning process and would also be waiting for the identification of key activities to work on. He expressed his appreciation for having been given the opportunity to participate in the WG meeting and wished it success.
Pat Traynor
She expressed that this is one of the meetings after which everyone goes away feeling that they have made progress. However, there’s more to it than this. The first few steps have been taken and the hard part of the work lies ahead. A lot of commitment and bright ideas have been demonstrated. She is, therefore, confident the WG will achieve its stipulated goals by the end of the year. She thanked all the participants for the work done and looks forward to seeing them again in the second WG meeting.
Paco Sérémé
He expressed his thanks to all of the partners. If in 2 days such a progress has been realized it is because of their very pertinent contributions. This task he said, would sensitize everyone as regards the role they will have to play in the process. He hopes that the enthusiasm shown by the group will be sustained. He thanked USAID for its support to this initiative as well as all the other partners that have participated in this process. He expressed his thanks to W. Alhassan and his collaborators, Harold and Marcel. He also thanked the interpreters and on behalf of the group wished one of the participants, Ndèye Ndack Diop, a happy birthday. Wished he was happy to return all of Their Various destinations. Then he closed The First Declared CORAF WG meeting on Biotechnology and Biosafety.
APPENDICES
---------------------------
Source: Mr. Babacar Ndiaye
Participant's Expert
Independent Consultant & Sustainability Ethic
Independent Consultant SD / CES (Sustainable development & Sustained Economic grouth)
Tel: +221 77 539 47 35
E-mail: worldleadership_2000@yahoo.fr
Address: BP 37171 Dakar / SENEGAL
