In 2003 IFPRI released the results of Next Harvest, a study that compiled and analyzed the first comprehensive database of publically-developed genetically modified crops under development in non-industrialized countries. Since then, several regional and national efforts have been made to update this database and expand Next Harvest findings. Nevertheless, to this day there are no comprehensive data about the state of biotechnology in developing countries, that takes into account both traditional and modern biotechnologies under development by the public and private sector. In particular, in Africa the lack of standardized and uniformly collected data is limiting the ability to assess the overall state of Africa’s agricultural biotechnology capacity and draw policy recommendations regarding countries’ strengths and needs. To begin to fill this gap, IFPRI has started gathering information using standard data collection protocols in four countries in Africa. This study presents the results for Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda and shows the differences and similarities among their state of biotech development. South Africa, clearly the leader in biotech adoption in the continent, is a country where agricultural biotechnology has been mainstreamed in a significant number of agricultural research institutes. Nigeria, on the other hand, has had more difficulties developing and implementing biotechnologies. Kenya and Uganda maintain a solid portfolio of agricultural biotechnology research but still face institutional and human and financial resource limitations. Drawing from the rich data collected, the study identifies the opportunities and challenges and makes policy recommendations to address current limitations.

1. Program for Biosafety Systems – http://pbs.ifpri.info/
Next Harvest II
Agricultural Biotechnology Capacity
and Development in Africa
Jose Falck-Zepeda, Patricia Zambrano, Geoffrey
Arinaitwe, Muffy Kock, Virginia Kimani, Sylvia
Uzochukwu,
“ Next Harvest II: Biotechnology Capacity in Africa,AWay Forward” , OFAB-PBS Roundtable, June 5,
2015 Kampala Uganda.This presentation has not been formally peer-reviewed by IFPRI or elsewhere.
Opinions in this presentation and paper are solely those of the authors and not of IFPRI and its donors.

2. Next Harvest II team
Country team leaders
IFPRI-PBS
• Sylvia Uzochukwu -
• Geofrey Arinaitwe -
• Virginia Kimani -
• Muffy Koch -
Nigeria
Uganda
Kenya
South Africa
• Patricia Zambrano
• Jose Falck-Zepeda
• Judy Chambers
• Pilar Rickert
• Hillary Hanson

3. Background
Next Harvest, 2004 IFPRI-AfDB report, 2014

4. Next Harvest II Scope
• Countries: Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda
and South Africa
• Technologies: Agricultural R&D
biotechnology
– Number of public and private
institutions
– Focus of agbiotech R&D project
– Human and financial resources
– Techniques and methods
– Focus of established collaborations
– State of current policy and
regulations
– Constraints and opportunities

5. Scope: Institutions working on
agbiotech
• Government research
• Academic
• Private companies
• Associations
• International,
Continental and other
organizations
• Regulatory

6. Instruments developed
and implemented
• Institute/group questionnaire 81
• Project questionnaire 129
• Semi-structured interviews 119

7. 23
30
59
15
22
20
Uganda
Kenya
Nigeria
South
Africa
NH II Identified
7
5
1
15
2
4
1
10
Institutes implementing agbiotech,
2012
All Private

8. Ongoing agbiotech projects, 2012
2
28
2
10
10
30
3
5
10
45
Microbes
Forestry and
ornamentals
Livestock and
fisheries
Crops
Nigeria Kenya Uganda

9. South Africa: number of groups
implementing Agbiotech R&D, 2012
Sector Type R&D
groups
#
R&D
projects
Estimated #
Public Public research 19 715
Academic 16 215
Government 1 10
Private NGO 1 1
Private 15 25
All 52 966

10. Number of researchers implementing agbiotech projects, 2012
59.8
84.2
109.0 102.4 99.0
23.1
38.8
68.0
59.0 70.0
Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.DiplomasOther support
45.0 33.0 43.0
24.0
50.0
9.0 22.0
32.0
24.0
50.0
Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support
16.4 12.8 15.7 20.0
34.05.0 11.8 12.0 14.0
19.0
Ph. D. M.Sc B.Sc. Cert.Diplomas Other support
Male Female
Kenya, 160.7 FTE
Nigeria, 382.8 FTE
Uganda, 279 FTE

11. Estimated number of researchers and support
implementing agbiotech projects
South Africa, 2012
Degree ARC All others Total
Ph. D. 105 34 139
M.Sc. 213 70 283
B. Sc. 678 222 899
Other Research 13 4 17
Support 825 231 1,055
All 1,833 561 2,394

12. Estimated Agbiotech R&D spending, 2012
Institutes
(number)
Local Currency Unit
(millions)
2012 US$
(millions)
As % of
AgGDP
Kenya 22 421.9 KY Shillings 4.99 0.041
Nigeria 20 870.6 Naira 5.55 0.005
South
Africa
1 730.8 Rand 89.12 0.904
Uganda 15 ---- Ug Shillings 5.5 0.098

13. Number of projects by technology

14. GM crop projects under development
Crop
Kenya Nigeria South Africa * Uganda
Regulatory status
Banana Lab/GH - - CFT
Cassava CFT CFT TR Lab/GH
Cotton PC - CFT CFT
Cowpea Lab/GH CFT Lab -
Deciduous fruit - - Lab -
Finger Millet - - - CFT
Groundnuts - - - CFT
Gypsophila CT - - -
Irish Potato Lab/GH - CFT -
Jatropha PofC - - -
Maize CFT - CFT CFT
Pigeonpea CBI - - -
Rice - - - CFT
Sorghum CFT CFT GH -
Sugarcane - - PC -
Sweet potato Lab/GH - Lab CFT
Wattle - Lab

15. Limitations addressed by
collaboration established
1. To solve technical research capabilities, 23%
2. Funding, 18%
3. To overcome constraints regarding the ability
to implement research, 17%
4. To solve problems of access to research
inputs, 13%
5. All other reasons, 29%

16. The Furman, Porter and Stern model for
determinants of national innovative capacity
Cumulative technology
sophistication
Human capital and financial
resources available for R&D
activity
Set of resource commitments and
policy choices
• Investments in education/training
• Intellectual property protection
• Information and communication
technologies
•Openness to international trade
Common Innovation
Infrastructure
Plant Breeding
Biotechnology
Cluster-Specific Environment
For Innovation
Quality of
Linkages
Context for Firm
Strategy and Rivalry
Factor (Input)
Conditions
Demand
Conditions
Related & Supporting
Industries

17. National innovation and GM
biotechnology capacity in Africa
Common innovationinfrastructure
Links, networks and
technology transfer
capacity Cluster specific environment
Countries
Overall
innovative
capacity
Intellectual
Property
situation
Economy
wide status Market size
Strength of
the private
sector
Biotechnology
technical
capacity
Biosafety
regulatory
capacity
Summary
biotech
capacity
Algeria +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ + +++
Burkina ++ + ++ +++ ++ + ++ +
Egypt +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ +++
Kenya +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Nigeria +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++
South Africa +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ +++
Tanzania +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + ++
Uganda +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Zambia ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta,
Debdatta; Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC:
African Development Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute.

18. Effective agbiotech capacity: Mapping
countries to policy situations
Policy situation Policy objective to
further develop
biotechnology capacity
Small market Medium markets Large markets
Nonselective
biotechnology
importers
Develop the framework
for using biotechnology
products
Seychelles, São Tomé and
Príncipe, Cape Verde,
Comoros, Mauritius,
Equatorial Guinea,
Swaziland, Gambia,
Guinea-Bissau, Gabon,
Lesotho, Botswana,
Liberia
Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Central African
Rep., Congo Rep., Chad,
Côte d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Guinea
Libya, Mozambique, Mali,
Rwanda, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, Togo, Zimbabwe
Cameroon, Congo,
Dem. Rep. Sudan,
Niger
Selective
biotechnology
importers
Improve the efficiency of
agricultural research
through the use of
biotechnology tools
Namibia, Ghana, Tunisia Ethiopia, Tanzania,
Algeria, Morocco,
Zambia, Uganda,
Kenya
Biotechnology tools
users
Improve the efficiency
and R&D products
Nigeria
Egypt
Biotechnology
Innovators
Take advantage of the
development of
innovation capacity based
on biotechnology
applications and the
development of
innovations
South Africa
Source: Chambers, Judith A.; Zambrano, Patricia; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sengupta, Debdatta;
Hokanson, Karen. 2014. GM agricultural technologies for Africa: A state of affairs. Report. Washington DC: African Development
Bank, International Food Policy Research Institute.

19. Concluding remarks
• This study shows that there has been significant agbiotech
R&D progress over the past 15 years in the four countries
studied
• If a countries desires to develop agbiotech capacity, it
needs to further advance the enabling environment to
facilitate research, develop and transfer of agbiotech
products to farmers – to a lesser degree South Africa…
– Biotechnology and biosafety laws and policies
– Seed and vegetative material systems
– Intellectual property issues
– Increases investments in technology deployment and
stewardship approaches
• Critical to devise innovation pathway and how to promote
linkages, common innovation infrastructure, and the
innovation clusters
– Moving towards a bioeconomy and a knowledge based
economy

20. Funding for this project was provided by
The John Templeton Foundation