Strengthening Capacity for Implementation of the Biosafety Protocol in Africa August 25 th to 27 th 2010 Safari Par

1. Strengthening Capacity for Implementation of the Biosafety Protocol in Africa August 25th to 27th 2010 Safari Park Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACT ON TRADE • The Kenyan example • Kimani V and G. Gruere

2. Background International Food Policy Research Institute Import control and documentation requirements of living modified organisms for food, feed or processing: Implications of the Cartagena Protocol’s article 18.2.a in Kenya 2009 Kimani.V and G. Gruere

3. Article 18.2 (a) of the Protocol 18 2. Each Party shall take measures to require that documentation accompanying: (a) Living modified organisms that are intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing, clearly identifies that they "may contain" living modified organisms and are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment, as well as a contact point for further information. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall take a decision on the detailed requirements for this purpose, including specification of their identity and any unique identification, no later than two years after the date of entry into force of this Protocol; Kimani.V and G. Gruere

4. Article 18 2(a) explained • Clear identification in the documentation that accompanies shipments of LMO-FFPs implies that a system of detection, segregation and identity preservation may need to be set up. Kimani.V and G. Gruere

5. Brazil 2006: two options • Shipments containing LMO-FFPs identified “through means such as identity preservation systems” must show that the shipment “does contain” LMO-FFPs and provide a list of GM events present in the shipment. • For cases where the identity of the LMO shipment is not known by ‘means such as identity-preservation systems’: the shipment can be identified as one that ‘may contain’ one or more LMO-FFPs with information on the BCH. Kimani.V and G.Gruere

6. Brazil 2006 • This two option requirement will be revisited in COPMOP 2010 in Japan, with the possibility of implementing the “does contain” option to all shipments by 2012. Kimani.V and G. Gruere

7. Identity Preservation System • The term ‘Identity-Preservation Systems’ is not defined in the text or in the Cartagena Protocol. It can be understood to mean segregation and testing, and is non-exhaustive. • Most important to note: “contains” option requires a list of unique LMO-FFPs in each shipment: very difficult when each shipment contains many types of LMO-FFPs commingled. Kimani.V and G. Gruere

8. Africa • Most countries in Africa are signatory to the Cartagena Protocol (about 40 countries) • There is now enhanced trade in various blocks in Africa including COMESA, SADC and EAC • Important commodities are maize, soya bean, less significant are cotton and canola Kimani.V and G. Gruere

9. Status of GM Crops and LMOs demand in Africa • Maize- high demand in some countries- intermittent production interrupted by crises of various kinds • Drought • Civil strife and war • Terrorism • Poverty • Distribution bottlenecks in some countries • Need for imports into and transit thru either Africa or outside the continent. • the size of the regional maize market (EAC and COMESA) was estimated at slightly over US$1billion in 2007( real share was 13%- the rest was met by outside supplies- EAGC) Kimani.V and G.Gruere

10. KilindiniDocked with maize Kimani.V and G.Gruere

11. Inside the ship Kimani.V and G.Gruere

12. Sampling Kimani.V and G.Gruere

13. Sampling Kimani.V and G.Gruere

14. Kenya-Tanzania border Isebania Kimani.V and G.Gruere

15. Status of GM Crops and LMOs demand • Soya bean • imported as grain • corn soya blend • meal and • other finished products such as soya chunks for both human and animal feed ingredients. Kimani.V and G.Gruere

16. WFP Logistics Office Mombasa Kimani.V and G.Gruere

17. Status of GMO adoption in Africa • South Africa- growing and highly commercial Maize, soya bean, cotton • Egypt- commercial maize • Burkina Faso- commercial cotton mega country • Kenya- on trials and soon commercial growing, cotton, maize Kimani.V and G.Gruere

18. Table 1. Relevant institutions in the import process of agricultural commodities into Kenya and expected changes with the implementation of the Biosafety Act and proposed regulations - 2009

19. Table 2. Expected changes in documentation and procedure with adoption of “does contain” or “may contain” options of the Biosafety Protocol- Article 18.2.a compared to the Biosafety Act Kimani.V and G.Gruere

20. Implications of document changes- “contains” • KEPHIS and KBA • Introduction of new documents(currently C63 used by all) • capacity building of points of entry staff and in laboratories • Introduction of testing equipment at points of entry ( ELISA most possible) • Possible delays due to sampling • Overall cost of forms, training, analysis, KBA tax and cost of delays • Hidden charges during transition period – manual records outside of the computerised system Kimani.V and G.Gruere

21. Implications of document changes- “contains” • Revenue Authority • Capacity building of point of entry officers • Likely introduction of new variable in the Simba system Kimani.V and G.Gruere

22. Implications on trade – “contains” • Exporters – Africa included • Identity preservation systems identity and development- segregation mostly • Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of all events to issue certificate of analysis with shipping documents • cost of segregation, sampling, analysis, reporting and storage of samples • Time delays at points of exit • Lack of competitiveness of produce due to price, inability to provide certificates of analysis Kimani.V and G.Gruere

23. Implications on trade – “contains” • Importers • Identity of non-GMO sources and guarantees • Preference of non-GMO has cost implications • E.g non-GMO more expensive than GMO maize in 2008-9 • white maize seen as non-GMO while yellow maize not • Extended shortages result in real shortage, increased prices • Likely increase in clearance charges • Non-GMO producers make embargo on their produce to secure domestic demand- TZ(2008) • Realignment of trade blocks – US and Argentina may have declined exports with KEBS declaration on GM free Kimani.V and G.Gruere

24. Quoted clearance charges for localsea freight imports(maize or other dry grain): Kilindini, Kenya Kimani.V and G.Gruere

25. Estimated costs of documentation 1 consignment of maize- 1 container 20 tonnes ( small loads more expensive) • Exporter Cost of IPS, sampling, analysis, inspection, etc at loading estimated at USD 100. Conservation estimates likely to be more for more traits/genes • Plant inspectorate service- Present cost of point of entry sampling, analysis one sample out of 5% -Inspectorate Service none- cost borne by gov. Likely to be introduced, min USD 15, likely USD 250 (Plant inspectorate present phyto charges USD 15- possible increase in fees to USD 20) • Clearance agent- possible rise in cost due to change in documentation(plant inspectorate, Biosafety Authority inpsections– estimated additional USD 50 • Revenue Authority -Possible change in form introducing increase in IDF fees- from 2.25% to 2.3%. Estimates of USD 110.2 vs 112.7. an additional USD 3 • KBA- Biosafety fees possible US 20 • Additional total per consignment- USD 423 • Total import cost (CIF Mombasa) for 20 tonne goes up from USD 4900 to USD 5323 • Cost transferred to consumers Kimani.V and G.Gruere

26. Experiences from other blocks/countries • Brazil-Brazil depends strictly on the industrial, science and technology and agricultural sectors to develop and put in place the necessary measures to fulfil the COP-MOP/3 decision regarding identification and documentation for shipments of LMOs.-Mr. Rubens OnofreNodari • Mexico- Unique as it trades with Protocol non-members- it is complicated. Ms. Amanda Gálvez Mariscal, PhD • Japan- It is an issue of consumers’ confidence rather than food safety.-Ms. Yuko WATANABE Kimani.V and G.Gruere

27. Results of trade simulations in the case of maize (Bouet,Gruere and Leroy 2010) • “Contains” information requirements increase the price of maize and result in significant trade diversion • Global welfare losses up to $1.2 billion/ year, 62 of 80 countries lose. • Who gains from supporting it? Large non-GM maize producers in Protocol members (Europe) • Who loses? Consumers in developing countries that are Protocol members (including in Africa) along with all GM producers (Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, US).

28. Illustration: results for Kenya • Domestic maize price increases • From +0.5% to +4.9% depending on scenario • Trade diversion • Less imports -0.6% to -4.2%, increasingly from less productive corn exporters (still potentially GM) • Welfare effects • Kenya has much to lose from this measure. Source: Bouet, Gruere and Leroy (2010)

29. Results in other African countries (highest cost scenario) Source: Bouet, Gruere and Leroy (2010)

30. The End Kimani.V and G.Gruere