Under the bright butterfly logo of the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17) in Yerevan, Armenia, the ISAAA AfriCenter team spent a week where science meets diplomacy. Delegates from almost 200 countries had gathered for the first global review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In negotiating rooms full of square brackets, we followed the talks on synthetic biology, biosafety, and digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. Our message was simple: Africa needs enabling, science-based policies so that modern biotechnology can help conserve and restore the continent’s extraordinary biodiversity.
Straight from the airport into the action
Our flight landed on the afternoon of Monday, 19 October, so the opening plenary had already finished when we got to Yerevan. We dropped our bags, headed straight for the venue and collected our badges. That evening we caught up on the webcast and the daily reports. Armenia’s Hambardzum Matevosyan had been elected President of the meetings, and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Executive Secretary Astrid Schomaker had told delegates that “taking action for nature does work.” She was also frank: halfway to 2030, progress is not happening at the pace or scale the world needs.
For an early-career scientist, that honesty was a call to action, and a reminder that science-driven solutions are ready to help close the gap. Ambitious targets are only as good as the tools, finance and policies that deliver them. Science, including modern biotechnology, has to be part of that delivery.
Synthetic biology: a conversation Africa must shape
By the time we arrived, Working Group II had already set up a contact group on synthetic biology. We had followed this item since SBSTTA 28 in Nairobi in July. We knew the draft text carried brackets on questions that matter for Africa:
- Should Parties adopt a thematic action plan on capacity-building, technology transfer and knowledge-sharing?
- Should a new expert group look at “applications for conservation use”?
- Should Parties take a “precautionary” approach alone, or a “precautionary and science-based” one?
These are not abstract debates. Genomic and gene-editing tools are opening exciting new possibilities for conservation, from tracking genetic diversity to rescuing small and inbred populations and tackling invasive species and wildlife diseases. Africa is well placed to benefit, with a growing pool of talented scientists and regulators. In the corridors, we spoke with African negotiators and partners about how to build on that momentum: well-equipped laboratories, skilled risk assessors, and regulatory systems that can review new applications efficiently and with confidence. With that capacity in place, Africa can move from debating these tools to putting them to work for its own conservation priorities.
Biosafety: practical work on the Cartagena Protocol
At the 12th meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the work was practical. Many Parties supported a new supplementary chapter on digital PCR for detecting and identifying living modified organisms (LMOs). Mexico pointed to big gaps in laboratory capacity between countries.
The African Group asked why so few countries had made submissions on socioeconomic considerations. Speaking for the Group, Burkina Faso asked that future work on new developments in modern biotechnology take developing countries’ capabilities into account.
A contact group on risk assessment, co-chaired by Prof. Martha Kandawa-Schulz of Namibia, debated whether a new expert group should develop more voluntary guidance. One Party proposed using artificial intelligence to speed up the work, and several delegations supported the idea. The African Group also called for adequate funding for biosafety in the next replenishment of the Global Environment Facility, and Parties later agreed to ask for adequate, predictable and dedicated financing for biosafety.
Watching African delegates speak up for functional biosafety systems was inspiring. It is exactly the enabling environment ISAAA AfriCenter works to build at home. Many countries, in Africa and beyond, are already updating their guidelines for gene-edited crops. To follow these changes, Crop GE Regulations, a volunteer resource I co-edit, maps gene-editing regulations around the world. Its GE Crop Product Tracker shows which gene-edited crops have been approved for commercial release.
In memory of Prof. Martha Kandawa-Schulz
Our week in Yerevan also brought very sad news. Prof. Martha Kandawa-Schulz, Namibia’s National Focal Point for the Cartagena Protocol, passed away in Yerevan on 23 October 2026. She was serving as Co-Chair of the contact group on risk assessment and risk management of LMOs. In July, at SBSTTA 28 in Nairobi, she co-chaired the contact group on synthetic biology. Through her expertise, leadership and collegiality, she contributed greatly to the Convention, its Protocols and the global biosafety community. For young African scientists like me, she was proof that Africa’s voice on biosafety can lead the global conversation.
ISAAA AfriCenter extends its heartfelt condolences to her family, friends and colleagues, to the Government and people of Namibia, to the African Group and to the global biosafety community. May her soul rest in peace.
Digital sequence information: who pays, who benefits?
Few items drew more interest than DSI and the Cali Fund. This is the new global fund where companies that benefit from genetic sequence data are expected to share benefits.
I spent Tuesday morning in Working Group I, listening to Parties continue their statements on DSI. Synthetic biology was not formally on that agenda, but it was never far away. Sequence data is the raw material of synthetic biology and gene editing: scientists read, compare, and redesign genomes on computers long before anything happens in the lab. So, the rules on who pays for DSI, and how it is tracked, will shape how Africa does modern biotechnology. Kenya captured the balance well. Pointing to its growing biotechnology and research capacity, it said it wants both effective benefit-sharing and responsible access to data. It called for capacity-building in sequencing and bioinformatics, and for tracking of DSI that does not obstruct open scientific data sharing or burden research in developing countries.
The African Group, through Egypt, argued that the Fund should not rely only on voluntary contributions. Cameroon and Ethiopia urged developed countries to adopt domestic measures that would make their companies contribute. Delegates also worked on contribution rates and thresholds. They debated what counts as an “entity” and as “direct and indirect use” of DSI. For a continent rich in genetic resources and growing in genomics research, getting this balance right matters. Done well, fair benefit-sharing and open data can go hand in hand, fueling African research while rewarding the countries and communities that conserve biodiversity.
The bigger picture
Behind every item sat the question of money. Delegates discussed a biodiversity finance gap of about USD 700 billion a year, and the target of mobilizing USD 200 billion a year by 2030. There were also wins to celebrate. COP17 adopted its decision on invasive alien species, which calls for facilitating technology transfer, in particular for developing countries, to support monitoring and management.
What we take home
I left Yerevan with sore feet, a notebook full of acronyms, and a clear conviction. Africa’s scientists, regulators and communicators belong at these tables. Negotiators make better decisions when they have credible evidence, explained clearly. With policies grounded in science, modern biotechnology can become one of Africa’s strongest allies in meeting its biodiversity targets.
About the Author
Dr. Godfrey M. Ngure is a Senior Program Officer at ISAAA AfriCenter, where he leads initiatives in science communication, science diplomacy, and policy advocacy to advance the responsible development and deployment of agricultural biotechnology in Africa. He holds a Ph.D. in Biotechnology from the University of Tsukuba, Japan. Dr. Ngure is passionate about bridging science, policy, and society and has extensive experience in stakeholder engagement, biotechnology communication, and fostering networks of early-career bioscience professionals across Africa. His work focuses on leveraging science, technology, and innovation to support sustainable agricultural development and evidence-based decision-making. He can be reached at gmngure@isaaa.org or connected with on LinkedIn.