Review of the Policy, Regulatory Mechanisms and Administration of Biosafety in Eastern and Southern Africa: A study of Kenya, South Africa, Malawi and the ASARECA initiative
This report summarises the results of a review of the policy, regulatory mechanisms and 
administration of biosafety in Kenya, Malawi and South Africa and under the ASARECA regional 
initiative. The report focuses on the current situation and provides insights as to the form that 
developments in the area of regulation of biotechnology are likely to take. 
The first section is an introduction, which provides the definition and scope of biotechnology as 
used in this report. It provides a brief status of agricultural research; the areas of research and the 
actors involved in biotechnology in the study countries. With the exception of South Africa, 
experimentation in transgenic crops is still under development. Most of the current agricultural 
biotechnology R&D activities focus on improving crop productivity. The actors are mainly National 
Agriculture Research Institutes, International Agricultural Research Centres and universities. 
Private sector involvement is in the form of multinational companies. 
The second section discusses the frameworks for the regulation of biotechnology. These include 
international obligations, regional attempts, as well as national efforts in regulating biotechnology in 
the study countries. Regulation at the national level has been in the form of national policies, 
national strategies and through legislation. In Kenya and in most countries under the ASARECA 
initiative, acts of parliament are yet to be enacted. The proposed bill and regulations in Kenya and 
the proposed regional regulatory structure under ASARECA are discussed with the aim of 
providing an insight as to the trend regulation in these jurisdictions is likely to take. 
The third section is a discussion on institutional arrangements in the field of agricultural 
biotechnology. Who are the institutional actors? What are the synergies? What is the institutional 
capacity in terms of human resources and physical infrastructure? This section also explores the 
commercialisation and innovation attempts in the study countries. It examines public perception 
and acceptance of modern biotechnology and ends with a brief mention on intellectual property 
protection in the study countries. South Africa has a developed institutional structure with 
impressive facilities and adequate human resource capacity. Critical mass in modern biotechnology 
in the other study countries is yet to be attained. Facilities for experimentation in GM technology 
are likewise lacking in Kenya, Malawi and other ASARECA countries. 
The fourth section summarises the review and presents the way forward. South Africa is best 
placed to handle applications for testing transgenics such as the rosette-resistant groundnut 
developed by ICRISAT. A representative from the Malawi biosafety committee should be involved 
in the testing of the groundnuts in RSA as part of a capacity building exercise and also to pave the 
way for the testing of the groundnuts in Malawi. In Kenya, there are indications that once an event 
is approved elsewhere, it is likely to receive timely approval subject to any additional testing that 
the National Biosafety Board may deem necessary. ICRISAT would have to collaborate with the 
KARI Institutional Biosafety Committee through which the application to the National Biosafety 
Committee would be made.
A national science and technology policy
One of our most pressing needs is for a continuous mechanism to assure that the fruits of science and technology are purposefully used for the economic and social benefit of the entire country. Many of the problems discussed apply equally to other nations throughout the world Science and technology are the dominant influences in our lives, as individuals in a society, and as a nation in a world of other nations. Given this premise, one might assume that there must be a national policy for science and engineering. We have a fiscal policy, a tax policy, a natural resources policy, an agricultural policy, a trade policy, a defense policy, a foreign policy. But as yet we do not have a national policy for science and engineering — at least, we do not have a firm one. We must not adopt a policy of national neglect, or a policy of national indifference toward one of the most significant and far-reaching elements in our society.
Did the metamorphosis from Export Processing Zones to Special Economic Zones improve the efficiency of trade enclaves in India?
In this paper, the efficiency of seven conventional Special Economic Zones in India is analyzed, by adopting a stochastic production frontier technique, for the period between 1986–1987 and 2007–2008.Results indicate that although the efficiency scores of these enclaves have improved over the years, specifically with the introduction of the SEZ policy (2000–2001), it is far below the threshold level as identified in the literature. Besides, one can also observe a discrepancy emerging between better export earning zones and efficient zones. On the determinants side, policy intervention and large geographical area, accompanied by clustering of units, are found to have impacted the efficiency scores of these enclaves positively.