By Dr Margaret Karembu, MBS, Director ISAAA AfriCenter and Chair, Africa Science Dialogue
There is a well-known African saying: If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. This wisdom is particularly relevant to biotechnology and biosafety, where scientific developments, agricultural systems, trade and food security increasingly transcend national borders.
Africa’s experience with biotechnology has demonstrated both the opportunities and the need for strong systems to guide its responsible use. As more countries explore genetically modified crops, gene editing and other emerging technologies, the question is no longer simply whether countries can develop national biosafety systems, but how they can work together to address issues that are inherently regional.
The COMESA region offers an important example. Over the years, COMESA Member States have invested in developing a regional approach to biotechnology and biosafety, beginning with the Regional Approach to Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (RABESA) and progressing to the COMESA Biotechnology and Biosafety Policy (COMBIP). The process was driven by a recognition that countries sharing borders, markets and agro-ecological systems also share many of the opportunities and challenges associated with biotechnology.
COMBIP provides a framework for cooperation in areas including commercial planting, trade and emergency food aid containing genetically modified products. Its importance lies not simply in establishing common policy directions, but in recognising that national biosafety decisions can have regional implications.
Crops and commodities move across borders. Farmers operate within shared production systems. Countries often face the same pests, diseases and environmental pressures. A decision concerning the cultivation, movement or use of a particular biotechnology product can therefore generate questions for neighbouring countries, even where each country retains full responsibility for its own regulatory decisions.
Regional cooperation offers a way of addressing these realities without replacing national regulatory systems. It can provide access to a wider pool of scientific expertise, enable countries to learn from one another and make existing evidence more useful. For countries with emerging or less developed regulatory capacity, such cooperation can be particularly valuable.
One area with considerable potential is the transportability of biosafety data. Not every assessment needs to begin from the same starting point when relevant scientific evidence already exists elsewhere. With appropriate consideration of differences in environments, production systems and regulatory requirements, evidence generated in one country can help inform assessments in another. This can reduce duplication, strengthen the evidence base and make regulatory processes more efficient while maintaining scientific rigour.
A regional pool of independent experts can similarly strengthen decision-making. Such expertise can be mobilised to examine scientific and technical questions of regional relevance and provide evidence-based opinions on issues such as cultivation, trade, transit and food aid. These opinions would complement, rather than replace, the statutory responsibilities of national regulators.
This approach is becoming increasingly important as biotechnology evolves. Gene editing and other emerging breeding technologies are creating new products and applications that require regulators and policymakers to keep pace with the science. Building shared understanding and strengthening the ability to assess new technologies will be essential if the region is to respond to these developments with confidence and consistency.
Yet effective biosafety governance depends on more than technical assessment. It also depends on how science is communicated. Regulators, policymakers, farmers, journalists and the public need access to accurate and understandable information about biotechnology, including its benefits, risks and uncertainties. Stronger regional capacity in science communication, misinformation sensing and public engagement can therefore reinforce the credibility and effectiveness of biosafety systems.
The implementation of COMBIP provides an opportunity to bring these elements together. Rather than viewing regional harmonisation simply as an exercise in aligning regulations, the region can build a practical ecosystem for sharing scientific expertise, evidence, tools, experience and knowledge while fully respecting national mandates.
Partnerships will be important in making this possible. The Memorandum of Understanding between ACTESA and ISAAA AfriCenter provides a platform for collaboration in strengthening biotechnology and biosafety capacity, scientific communication and knowledge exchange. Such partnerships can connect COMESA’s regional convening mandate with technical expertise and practical experience in supporting evidence-based biotechnology governance.
Africa does not need every country to build its biosafety capacity in isolation. It can draw strength from the expertise, experience and evidence already available across the continent. Regional cooperation can help countries respond more efficiently to emerging technologies, strengthen the quality of risk assessment and ensure that decisions are informed by the best available scientific knowledge.
The task now is to turn the foundations already established into practical systems that work for countries, regulators, farmers, traders and the public. Going farther together means building a regional biosafety system that is scientifically credible, responsive to technological change and capable of supporting responsible innovation across Africa.