VZCZCXRO0316
PP RUEHROV
DE RUEHDS #2065/01 2370813
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 250813Z AUG 09
FM AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5984
INFO RUCNIAD/IGAD COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ADDIS ABABA 002065 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EEB/TPP/ABT JACK BOBO 
PASS TO USAID FOR JOSETTE LEWIS, LARRY BEACH, SAHARAH MOON 
CHAPOTIN 
ALSO USTR FOR PATRICK COLEMAN 
DEPT OF COMMERCE FOR ITA MARIA RIVERO 
NAIROBI FOR FCS AND FAS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TBIO SENV EAGR ETRD EAID ET
SUBJECT: GOE PASSES RESTRICTIVE BIOSAFETY LAW, BUT IS 
INTERESTED IN BT COTTON 
 
REF: ADDIS ABABA 1389 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Ethiopia recently enacted highly restrictive 
biosafety legislation that could significantly impact the 
importation of bioengineered seeds, food commodities, and 
processed foods.  Ethiopia's Environmental Protection 
Authority (EPA) is admittedly unprepared to implement the new 
legislation, owing to a lack of laboratory facilities, 
technical expertise, and manpower.  Although the EPA's 
leadership is ideologically opposed to the use of 
bioengineered crops, the EPA will likely be pressured to 
approve trials of such crops where they could promote growth 
in key export sectors, namely cotton.  End summary. 
 
BIOSAFETY LAW RESTRICTIVE, FAR-REACHING 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The Ethiopian parliament recently passed highly 
restrictive biosafety legislation, establishing broader and 
more stringent controls than are called for under the 
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.  The stated objective of the 
Biosafety Proclamation of 2009 is to protect biodiversity, as 
well as human and animal health, from "the adverse effects of 
modified organisms."  The law grants the EPA the power to 
regulate the making or use of any "modified organism" in 
"teaching, research, production, import, export, transit, 
release, contained production, transport, placing on the 
market, or use as pharmaceutical, as food, as feed, or for 
processing."  It makes no distinction between living 
organisms and products that are not capable of reproducing 
(e.g., processed foods), or between transgenic organisms and 
bioengineered organisms that do not contain genetic material 
from another species.  The law also prohibits the use of the 
phrase "may contain modified organisms," requiring instead a 
declaration that a product either does or does not contain 
modified organisms. 
 
¶3. (SBU) In a public statement, EPA Director General Dr. 
Tewolde Berhan Gebregziabhere described the Biosafety 
Proclamation as "based on the international biosafety law 
(i.e., the Cartagena Protocol), with local characteristics." 
Wondwossen Sintayehu, EPA Director of Environmental Law and 
Policy, told EconOff that Dr. Tewolde was the driving force 
behind the new law, and that the bill he initially proposed 
was even more restrictive than the resulting legislation. 
(Note:  Dr. Tewolde previously represented African nations 
during negotiations on the Cartagena Protocol, where he 
opposed the use of bioengineered crops in developing nations. 
 End note.)   Gebremedhin Birega, Director of the Eco 
Consumer Association, an environmental group that lobbied for 
the bill, separately told EconOff that the Ethiopian 
government's (GoE) Environmental Council (which drafted the 
bill and is comprised mainly of GoE officials) is largely 
opposed to the importation of bioengineered organisms, but 
was wary of appearing "anti-science" when drafting the new 
law. 
 
EPA HAS LIMITED IMPLEMENTATION CAPACITY 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The legislation, which has already entered into 
force, requires the EPA to approve or deny all applications 
for the use of modified organisms in Ethiopia, and further 
requires the EPA to establish a National Biosafety 
Clearing-House to study bioengineering and assist the EPA in 
making its decisions.  According to the EPA's Wondwossen, 
while the EPA "must now process applications, legally 
speaking," it is not capable of doing so.  Only two EPA 
employees currently specialize in biosafety, and Wondwossen 
stated that there are currently no facilities in Ethiopia 
that meet the standards for studying or conducting trials of 
modified organisms that are set forth in the draft 
implementing regulations.  Wondwossen described 
implementation of these regulations as "very problematic," 
and explained that in order to be approved, an applicant 
would be required "to prove to us (the EPA) that there is no 
risk" to biodiversity or to human or animal health from the 
bioengineered product.  He further noted that while the law 
does not distinguish between food products and non-edible 
 
ADDIS ABAB 00002065  002 OF 002 
 
 
goods, the EPA would scrutinize food products more closely. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Gebremedhin, of the Eco Consumer Association, voiced 
similar concerns over implementation to EconOff.  He 
predicted that the GoE would begin restricting the 
importation of bioengineered foods, in particular, but 
posited that without laboratories, biosafety expertise, and 
sufficient manpower, the EPA would not likely be able to 
review applications thoroughly.  He further suggested that 
where sufficient political will exists to import 
bioengineered crops (such as those which could boost 
Ethiopia's export sectors), applications would be approved 
without proper study.  Negusu Aklilu, Director of Forum for 
the Environment (FfE), a civil society organization that sits 
on the GoE's Environmental Council, told EconOff that 
finished products were not a concern to the GoE, but 
predicted the EPA would scrutinize living modified organisms 
(LMOs) more closely. 
 
STRONG INTEREST IN BT COTTON 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Both Gebremedhin and Negusu told EconOff that the 
GoE was strongly interested in importing transgenic Bacillus 
thuringiensis (BT) cotton seeds in an effort to boost 
Ethiopia's nascent textile sector (reftel).  They cited this 
interest as a major factor in the passage of the Biosafety 
Proclamation, and predicted that given the political will to 
boost textile production, any application to import BT cotton 
would be approved.  According to Negusu, the Tendaho cotton 
plantation in Afar will be the site of early trials.  Earlier 
this year, Dr. Tewolde publicly stated that Ethiopia would 
start trials of BT cotton within the year, and Dr. Adane 
Abraham, Coordinator of Biotechnology Research at the 
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), told 
EconOff that EIAR was keenly interested in promoting trials 
of BT cotton, and had been in contact with U.S. agribusiness 
firm Monsanto in that regard. 
 
IMPACT ON IMPORTED FOOD AID 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU)  The majority of U.S. food aid to Ethiopia is wheat 
and sorghum, which are not "modified organisms."  Based on a 
common understanding with the GoE, the U.S. and World Food 
Program (WFP) provide only milled (non-viable) maize and soy 
to Ethiopia, rather than (viable) maize and soy grains.  It 
has been understood that any request for duty free entry of 
whole maize grain or soybeans as food aid would be rejected, 
so the U.S. and WFP have conformed to this understanding and 
not attempted to import whole grains.  (Note:  This practice 
is endorsed by Dr. Tewolde, and the EPA's Wondwossen reported 
that he unsuccessfully attempted to include a requirement 
that any bioengineered relief food be milled or roasted prior 
to entry into Ethiopia in the biosafety law.  End note.) 
Nevertheless, because the law does not distinguish between 
living organisms and processed foods, the new requirement to 
obtain informed consent and provide a risk assessment may 
pose new obstacles to the provision of food aid containing 
bioengineered material, even in trace amounts. 
USAID/Ethiopia is developing a plan to provide capacity 
building to the EPA, and believes a positive intervention can 
be achieved through USAID's Program for Biosafety Systems 
(PBS), which has successfully supported the implementation of 
biosafety frameworks in other African countries (most notably 
the drafting and approval of Kenya's biosafety law) and has 
gained much respect in the region. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) This new biosafety law is far-reaching and highly 
restrictive, and has clearly been influenced by GoE officials 
opposed to biotechnology.  It appears that sufficient 
political will exists to begin trials of transgenic crops in 
sectors where they could promote exports - a key GoE goal. 
However, given the ideological bent of the current EPA 
leadership, it is likely that the GoE will restrict imports 
of bioengineered food and other crops that are not as closely 
tied to the GoE's development agenda.  End comment. 
MEECE