By Charles Kazooba
The East African Legislative
Assembly (EALA) plans to come up with a superior biotechnology law that will
regulate the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In line with the East
African Community Treaty, the law will supersede partner states legislations.
Following a petition to the
East African Parliament by the civil society community to look into Uganda’s
draft biotechnology and biosafety draft law the regional lawmakers promised to
first of all harmonize regulation of GMOs in the region and then come up with a
superior law.
The feeling is that if
efforts at harmonization were not made sooner, additional legislation to bring
the adopted national policies into harmony will be required at a later date,
increasing associated costs.
Patricia Hajabakiga, a
member of EALA and Chair of the Rwanda Chapter, said that there is already a
committee at the regional level discussing the both biosafety and biotechnology
in order to harmonize ideas.
She said harmonization would
be prudent since EAC was transforming into a single customs territory.
The chairperson of the
Agriculture, Tourism and Natural Resources committee Ndahayo Isabelle from
Burundi said that the EAC must therefore have harmonized policies with regard
to food security. She said EALA will develop a law in regard to food security.
The East African Community
(EAC) countries, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda are at different stages of
establishing their national biosafety frameworks yet cooperation across the
different countries is important noting the porosity of EA country borders.
In other words, a GMO
released in one country could easily seep into the neighboring territory
through formal or traditional seed exchange systems.
There is general consensus
that this is the right time to commence harmonization of regional policies for
biotechnology and biosafety to enable development of a coordinated mechanism
that exploits synergies amongst and is supported by complementary national
frameworks.
The GMOs debate thus invokes
mixed feelings from environment, food safety and human health sector policy makers
and the general public.
Some activists in East
Africa have started lobbying for harsher laws regulating biotechnology in the
region but scientists, who are pro-GMOs think otherwise.
For instance, the pro GMO
lobby has started campaigning for review of the Tanzanian law which has a
provision of strict liability clause to regulate biotech.
They have been pressing for
the abandonment of the ‘precautionary principle’ enshrined in the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development, and the removal of the ‘strict
liability’ clauses that protect citizens and the environment.
Under its commitment to the
international agreement, Tanzania developed The Environmental Management
(Biosafety) Regulations 2009. This covers the procedures for dealing with
applications for the testing, risk assessment, release and commercialization of
GMOs, including liability for any damage caused by GMOs.
The Tanzanian Biosafety Regulations apply ‘strict
liability’ meaning that whoever introduces the GMO shall be automatically
liable for any damage caused. The pro GMO lobby wants Tanzania to remove this
liability and perhaps replace it with ‘fault based liability’ which would mean
that anyone claiming compensation for damage would have to prove that whoever
introduced the GMO was somehow at fault.
For example, under the existing strict liability rules,
if a farmer’s crop was contaminated by GMO seeds then the farmer could expect
to get compensation from whoever imported or introduced the GMO.
Under the proposed ‘fault based liability’ the farmer
would have to prove that the person introducing the GMO was somehow at fault,
e.g. that they had failed to follow correct safety procedures.
In Uganda, critics contend
that the biosafety bill in its current form will make the country’s food
security subservient to the whims of external market forces.
Ms Barbara Karugonjo, a researcher with
Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment argues that the objective
section of the Ugandan draft law does not make any reference to precautionary
principle as enshrined under international obligations in the Cartagena
Protocol.
Therefore, abandoning of the precautionary
principle reduces liability of multinational companies who would take advantage
of the situation and flood the local market with GMO products at the expense of
local farmers.
He says that the mere fact that the Bill does
not make mention of the precautionary principle defeats the purpose of the
proposed legislation to be cautious of emerging technologies.
The Bill also provides for expedited review
of an application for research and general release of a GMO approved in another
country with comparable ecosystems.
“The impression created by this provision is
that Uganda is clearly in a hurry to introduce GMOs without any safety
procedures. It is important to note that no two ecosystems are similar and such
provisions undermine the ethos of the Cartagena Protocol and places the farmers
in severe jeopardy,” he argues.
Third, he adds, the Bill does not provide for
compensation to farmers who have been affected by an accidental release of a
GMO. The Bill states that a restoration order may be issued where an activity
of a person causes damage.
“However, it is silent on who will bear the
liability, whether jointly or severally, and does not attach liability to the
developer of the GMO,” said Karugonjo.
The Kenyan law is yet to be fully tested. Just recently a
Minister banned GMOs following a study done by French researchers and published
in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, which indicated that rats fed
on GM maize, had developed cancerous tumours.
Bu the ban is being contested by Parliament.
Three parliamentary committees on health, agriculture, livestock and fisheries
and education science and technology said the ban that was announced by former
Public Health minister Beth Mugo in November 2012 was illegal.
The MPs said the ban was simply an executive
order that was not enforceable in law because it was not published in the Kenya
Gazette to make it legally binding.
No comments:
Post a Comment