VZCZCXRO4724
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #2707/01 3471204
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121204Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6727
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC 1997
INFO RUEHAN/AMEMBASSY ANTANANARIVO 0819
RUEHTO/AMEMBASSY MAPUTO 5991
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 0281
RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 6375
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 8726
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 0504

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 002707 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TPP/ABT, OES/PCI, AND AF/S 
DEPT PASS EB/TPP/ABT - JBOBO, JFINN, GCLEMENTS, AND MKOCH 
USDA FAS FOR OSTA/NTPMB/MHENNEY AND FNAIM 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA AFERRUS 
USDA FAS FOR OCBD KSKUPNIK AND JMAURER 
AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES FOR USDA/FAS AYANKELEVICH 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD KPAO PREL SENV SF TBIO
SUBJECT:  READOUT OF MADAGASCAR AND MOZAMBIQUE BIOTECHNOLOGY 
OUTREACH EVENTS 
 
REF: A) STATE 160639 B) PRET 000004 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  From August 20 - 27, 2008, Dr. C.S. Prakash, Professor 
of Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University, and Dr. Martin 
Lema, Advisor to the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture and Professor 
of Biotechnology, Quilmes University, travelled to Madagascar and 
Mozambique to lead two agricultural biotechnology and biosafety 
workshops sponsored by the USDA and the Governments of Mozambique 
and Madagascar.  Funding for these workshops came from State/EB 
($10,000) and USDA/FAS ($38,000).  END SUMMARY. 
 
Agriculture in Mozambique and Madagascar 
---------------------------------------- 
 
 
¶2. In Mozambique, agriculture contributes over 25 percent to GDP and 
over 75 percent of its population relies on agriculture for 
survival.  Due to agriculture's vulnerability to natural disasters 
(droughts and floods), the agricultural sector growth fell below GDP 
growth during the late 1990's through present. 
 
¶3. Twice the size of California, Mozambique has approximately 36 
million hectares of arable land.  Only 12 percent, however, is under 
cultivation.  The agricultural sector is divided between 
small-holder subsistence farmers, who are responsible for about 94 
percent of total agricultural production, and commercial farms, 
owned mostly by businesses, which are responsible for the remaining 
6 percent of agricultural production. 
 
¶4. The commercial farm segment grew approximately 45 percent from 
2001 to 2003, with a focus on cultivation of tobacco, cotton, and 
sugar.  From 2002 to 2004 agricultural exports increased 
approximately 40 percent to $266 million.  Non-agricultural exports 
during the same period increased approximately 98 percent. 
 
¶5. Mozambique continues to be a net food importer despite its 
natural resources base.  In 2004 agricultural commodity imports 
totaled approximately $294 million.  Wheat, rice, and vegetable oils 
(palm and soybean) were the top commodities imported, followed by 
oranges, corn, and poultry.  Agricultural exports, not including 
forestry and seafood, totaled $122 million in 2004.  Tobacco, 
cashews, cotton and sugar were the major commodities exported. 
¶6. Madagascar's agriculture, including fishing and forestry, is a 
mainstay of the economy, accounting for more than one-fourth of GDP 
and employing 80 percent of the population.  The estimated GDP 
growth rate in 2007 is 6.3 percent.  Madagascar's major exports 
include coffee, vanilla, shellfish, sugar, cotton cloth, chromite, 
and petroleum products.  Madagascar imports capital goods, 
petroleum, consumer goods, and food.  Deforestation and erosion, 
aggravated by the use of firewood as the primary source of fuel, are 
serious concerns. 
Biotechnology in Madagascar and Mozambique 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶7. Both countries are eager to improve their agricultural 
productivity and recognize that biotechnology can be a valuable tool 
to enhance the efficiency of their farming and can help in reducing 
their dependence on inputs while improving the quality of their 
food. However, both countries have little or no investment so far in 
Qfood. However, both countries have little or no investment so far in 
biotechnology research although some strides have been made with 
biosafety regulation. 
 
¶8. Due to the potential of the agriculture sector in Mozambique, and 
the lack of investment/advancement in that sector, the Government of 
Mozambique made a call for a second green revolution for Mozambique. 
 One of the tools that will be a leading factor in bringing change 
and advancement in the agriculture sector in Mozambique will be the 
promotion and use of biotechnology. 
 
¶9. Madagascar and Mozambique have signed and ratified the Cartagena 
Protocol on Biosafety, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 
They drafted national biosafety frameworks to help guide further 
development of their biotechnology activities.  These regulatory 
framework efforts were largely due to the presence of a UNEP/GEF 
program for 18 months that helped prepare the National Biosafety 
Frameworks "in agreement with the provisions of Cartagena Protocol" 
and help both countries to ratify the Protocol. Thus, both countries 
now have regulators with some training and understanding of 
 
PRETORIA 00002707  002 OF 004 
 
 
biosafety issues such as assessment of food safety, environmental 
risk evaluation, LMO detection, etc. 
 
 
¶10. Identified as a cross-cutting technology in Mozambique's 
Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy, due to the enormous 
potential this technology has to impact various sectors of the 
economy, biotechnology policy development is moving more rapidly in 
Mozambique than in Madagascar.  A National Biosecurity Regulation on 
Genetically Modified Organisms was published in the GOM official 
bulletin on April 25, 2007. 
 
¶11. This regulation was formulated by the Inter-Institutional Group 
on Biosecurity (GIIBS).  The GIIBS is tasked to co-ordinate 
biosafety activities in Mozambique.  It is an inter-institutional 
and multi-disciplinary group with the task of coordinating the 
process to establish the National Biosafety Framework including the 
development of biosafety policy, regulatory regime, and 
administration based on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which 
Mozambique ratified in December 2001. 
 
¶12. The Ministry of Science and Technology is the national competent 
authority and presides over the GIIBS.    The GIIBS consists of 
representatives from each of the following Ministries: Science and 
Technology, Agriculture, Environment, Health, Industry and Commerce, 
Fisheries, Planning and Development, and academic and research 
institutions.  Additionally, representatives and specialists from 
public and private entities may be invited to participate in GIIBS 
meetings. 
 
¶13. COMMENT: The biosafety policies in both countries appear to be 
largely risk-averse, and rooted in the 'precautionary principle' and 
thus more similar to the policies of European countries and that of 
EU. END COMMENT. 
 
The Workshops 
------------- 
 
¶14. The USDA/FAS sponsored workshop on agricultural biotechnology 
which focused on biosafety regulatory development issues in 
Antananarivo, Madagascar (August 20-21) and Maputo, Mozambique 
(August 26-27) was timely and opportunistic. The workshop provided 
an opening to help further advance biotechnology and biosafety 
policies in both countries. The meeting featured lectures by two 
invited experts from overseas, Dr. C. S. Prakash, 
Tuskegee University, and Dr. Martin Lema, biosafety regulator from 
Argentina, along with some very high-level policy experts from 
various local ministries - Science and Technology, Agriculture, 
Environment, Health, and Trade; along with university scientists and 
also representatives from CGIAR centers (in Maputo). 
 
¶15. The workshops in both locations were fairly similar in format. 
The first day of the workshops focused on the basics of 
biotechnology and GMOS, including an introduction to the global 
status of food production; historical contribution of science in 
advancing agricultural production; how biotechnology must be viewed 
as a continuum of techniques to improve crop varieties; and 
descriptions of the economic and environmental benefits of crop 
biotechnology worldwide. The next topic was a description of the 
U.S.' Coordinated Framework between FDA, EPA, and USDA by Farah 
Naim, International Trade Specialist, USDA/FAS. 
QNaim, International Trade Specialist, USDA/FAS. 
 
¶16. Dr. Lema described how Argentina has successfully employed 
biotechnology to stimulate its agricultural production over the past 
12 years.  He provided descriptive examples of various crop 
applications and documented the economic and environmental benefits 
of this technology with clear empirical data. Dr. Prakash then 
provided a series of examples on how biotechnology can conceivably 
impact developing countries agriculture through pest and disease 
resistance, improved nutrient efficiency, longer shelf life, 
enhanced stress tolerance, improved nutrients in the food, and 
through the development of biofuel crops. 
 
¶17. In Antananarivo Mrs. Chantal Andriananarivo (Ministry of 
Environment) provided an overview of biotech research and policy in 
Madagascar. She is in charge of Research and Enhancement of 
Biodiversity at the National Parks Authority of Madagascar (PNM) 
which is charged with implementing the Cartagena Protocol. She was 
 
PRETORIA 00002707  003 OF 004 
 
 
instrumental in shaping the policy and laws on biosafety, and thus 
spoke confidently about her country's challenges in implementing the 
biosafety policy, and in advancing biotechnology research. 
 
¶18. Similarly in Maputo, Dr. Andre da Silva, Legal Advisor, National 
Council of Sustainable Development, provided a very detailed report 
on the national biosafety regulation in Mozambique which consists of 
27 articles organized into nine chapters and 6 annexes. He described 
the proposed administrative system for biosafety consisting of 
single-entry point scheme with four core bodies to coordinate the 
regulation. 
 
¶19. An important observation made in both workshops by the local 
regulators was the important need for capacity building to implement 
the biosafety regulation in their countries.  Both local speakers 
emphasized the need for further training of specialists in food 
safety, environmental risk assessment, and intellectual property 
rights issues. 
 
 
¶20. While Mozambique has some laboratory facilities for "GMO 
detection" funded by Italian and German governments, such facilities 
are lacking in Madagascar.  Mozambique also has experience with 
biotech-related controversies and issues as it is a 
receiving/shipping point for donated corn from the United States for 
famine stricken-regions in Southern Africa (Zambia, Zimbabwe etc.). 
 
 
¶21. The second day of the workshop in both locations began with a 
lecture by Dr. Prakash on the "Scientific facts and myths regarding 
the safety of GM crops" where he described how regulatory oversight 
around the world has ensured the safety of biotech products.  He 
described how biotech products are regulated from conception of the 
idea through field testing and until commercialization, and how 
stewardship practices help monitor them after deregulation. 
Additionally, he also described constraints affecting biotechnology 
application in developing countries such as burdensome regulation, 
perceived negative impact of trading partners, influence of the EU, 
public perception, biased media reports, organized activism, lack of 
coherent policies, and insufficient support for agricultural 
research. 
 
¶22. Prof. Lema followed up with an analysis of "International 
guidance and capacity building for the safety assessment of GM 
crops" where he talked about various international instruments that 
govern regulation of GM crops and the transboundary movement of 
'Living Modified Organisms' such as Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. 
 
 
¶23. The next topic was on the importance of public understanding of 
issues in biotechnology.  Dr. Prakash emphasized how such public 
acceptance is critical to the integration of biotechnology in 
agriculture. His talk further identified various communication 
strategies that scientists and other experts can employ in their 
outreach efforts to enhance public understanding and acceptance of 
biotechnology. The final lecture, by Dr. Lema, focused on large 
global issues such as trade, IPR, genetic resource ownership, and 
technology transfer issues. 
 
¶24. The final session was an open debate among the participants 
Q24. The final session was an open debate among the participants 
moderated by Dr. Lema. This session was rather lively as it involved 
considerable brain storming, question and answers, plus a SWOT-like 
(Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat) listing based on 
feedback from the audience. This helped to identify several points 
of opportunity for further action to help formulate a concrete 
policy.  The workshops in both locations ended with a note of 
conclusion and words of thanks by the Ag Attache (Rush in 
Antananarivo, and Rojas in Maputo). 
 
¶25. COMMENT: The workshops in Madagascar and Mozambique were 
successful as they provided an excellent opportunity to target high 
level decision-makers in both of these countries who are charged 
with shaping biotechnology and biosafety policies.  The workshop 
provided insights into the real benefits of this technology to the 
economies of both countries while helping to identify some of the 
realistic challenges ahead in implementing them.  Hopefully, the 
lectures also helped bring awareness on the need to evolve a 
science-based approach to regulating genetically-modified crops and 
 
PRETORIA 00002707  004 OF 004 
 
 
food including commercialization of crops and food imports. 
 
¶26. Dr. Lema provided a very credible success story from Argentina 
on how his country has boldly embraced biotechnology to advance 
agriculture while reaping substantial benefits without any 
repercussions in the external trade.  Sharing such an experience 
from another developing country was very illustrative as the 
audience in both Madagascar and Mozambique could more readily 
empathize to the situation in Argentina than to the United States. 
END COMMENT. 
 
¶27. Both workshops helped foster a genuine dialog among the 
stakeholders by creating an awareness of the benefits of 
biotechnology for the Malagasy and Mozambican farmers and 
highlighted the importance of a viable and practical biosafety 
regulatory framework. In Maputo, the speakers and USDA 
representatives also had an opportunity to visit Instituto de 
Investigacao Agraria de Mocambique (on August 28, 2008) where Dr. 
Marcos Freire and a visiting professor from Italy (Dr. Mauro M. 
Colombo, Universita La Sapienza in Rome) gave us a tour of the 
facilities especially the lab on GMO detection. 
 
A Stop in Pretoria 
------------------------------ 
 
¶28. During the final leg of the trip, the speakers attended a forum 
on biotechnology in Pretoria, South Africa sponsored by AfricaBio. 
Dr. Lema delivered a very descriptive lecture on agbiotech research 
and commercialization and biosafety regulation issues in Argentina. 
Dr. Prakash delivered an impromptu lecture on societal resistance to 
change where he described several instances of historical reluctance 
to acceptance innovation in various countries. The audience which 
consisted of local scientists, graduate student, business and farmer 
groups participated in a very productive discussion after the 
lectures. 
 
The Next Steps 
-------------- 
 
¶29. COMMENT: We must continue to foster biotechnology research and 
education in these countries. Continued outreach and communication 
programs aimed at providing fact-based information to the regulators 
and other stakeholders would also help in dispelling many myths and 
misinformation surrounding the regulation and use of this 
technology. Existing programs such as the Cochran Fellowship, Norman 
Borlaug International Fellowship, and Fulbright awards must be used 
to help scientists, regulators, policy makers, and media persons in 
these countries to get first-hand experience of biotechnology as it 
is practiced in the United States, and to help build capacity 
through training. Translation of key biosafety documents to French 
and Portuguese would also be very helpful. END COMMENT.