The Cartagena Protocol is an international treaty that brings together member states, called parties, for the cause of sustainable use biological diversity, safe transfer of living modified organisms, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits resulting from the use of genetic resources. This document discusses the Zambian National Biosafety Authority (NBA), its origins, role, and how it applies the Cartagena as a member state to the treaty. The discussion will also give insights into the bioethical concerns that led to the implementation of the Biosafety Act in 2007. This is an academic document and it does not claim to be exhaust the subject. Should need to discuss the subject, simply send me an email. Enjoy the read!

1. 1
“Discussing Zambia’s National Biosafety Authority and
highlights on how the Cartagena protocol has been implemented.”
BY: MUUNDA MUDENDA, MSc Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Email: muundamudenda@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
In the year 2002, Zambia and several other SADC member countries experienced a famine which
resulted from a prolonged drought that affected the agricultural produce in the region. The food shortage
was very severe that it prompted the international community to send in relief food. The relief came
from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Food Program
(WFP). However, the food aid was turned down by the Zambian government at the time because it was
genetically modified. According to Mulenga, (2004), several concerns were presented by the Zambian
government among which was the aspect of safety of the Genetically Modified (GM) maize that was
donated. Moreover, this was at a time when products from modern biotechnology were finding their
way into Africa through the USAID. At the time, major GM producing Biotech companies in the US
were Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Breed, and Monsanto and African nations argued that these biotech
companies would place a padlock on the food chain because their seed was superior to what the average
farmers where using.
Apart from that, Bowman, (2015) and Mulenga, (2004) highlight that Zambia rejected the donated relief
food because at the time the country lacked a framework, policies and even legislation to monitor the
transport and importation of GM products. As the result, the safety of the citizens was not guaranteed.
This led to the formulation of the Biosafety and Biotechnology policy in 2003. The policy was to protect
the citizens from harmful products of biotechnology and also to promote some of the known benefits
of the modern biotechnology at the time. This policy also served as the backdrop for the formulation of
a bill which was presented to parliament and became an Act of parliament in 2007. The policy also later
brought together a multi-sectorial committee among which was an expert in the Cartagena protocol.
The Cartagena protocol is an outcome of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The protocol
was adopted in 2000 and came into force in September 2003. The main objective of the protocol is, “to
contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use
of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on
the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human
health, and specifically focusing on trans boundary movements” (CBD Secretariat, 2000).
The Cartagena protocol served as foundation for the establishment of Zambia’s National Biosafety
Authority (NBA) and majority of its articles have been embedded in the functioning of the NBA.
NATIONAL BIOSAFETY AUTHORITY
Zambia’s National Biosafety Authority has several objectives and I will endeavor to relate the
objectives to the particular articles they fulfill in the Cartagena protocol. The NBA serves as;
1. A regulatory system set in place to address the transport and importation of Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs): The NBA has set boarder control measures to ensure that all

2. 2
modified organisms to be allowed in and out of the country do not cause harm to humans,
animals and/ or the environment. This is in accordance with provision two (2) of article two (2)
of the Cartagena protocol which states that handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any
living modified organisms should reduce the risks to biological diversity, taking also into
account risks to human health.
2. An Administrative system to handle requests for permits for certain activities such as
release of GMOs: The NBA is responsible for assessing the capabilities of biotech companies
to carry out genetic modification and issue permits that allow such companies to develop and
release GMOs. This is in line with provision one (1) of article two (2) of the Cartagena protocol
which states that appropriate legal, administrative measures of the protocol must be met.
3. Mechanism for public participation and Information: The NBA ensures that up-to-date
information about GMOs on the market in the country are communicated to the public and that
sensitization of the benefits and possible negative effects are clearly indicated. This is in
accordance with article twenty-three (23) of the Cartagena protocol which emphasizes that there
should public awareness, education, and access to information on living modified organisms
identified should be communicated.
4. A decision-making system which system responsible for risk assessments for release of
GMOs: The NBA carries out risk assessment tests on all GM products and GMO testing sites
that are in the country. Their website also includes a sections that maps out all sites so that the
public is kept up-to-date. Article sixteen (16) of the Cartagena protocol states that measures
based on risk assessment shall be imposed to the extent necessary to prevent adverse effects of
the living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,
taking also into account risks to human health.
CONCLUSION
The above mentioned objectives of Zambia’s National Biosafety Authority are key to their functioning
as indicated on their website. These objectives are based on the Cartagena protocol. While the NBA
does not highlight how it has implemented all the articles of the protocol, what is key to note is that all
the provisions in article two (2) are fully integrated into the authority’s national biosafety framework.
References
Bowman, A. (2015). Sovereignty, Risk and Biotechnology: Zambia’s 2002 GM Controversy in Retrospect.
Development and Change, 46(6), 1369–1391. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12196
Mulenga, D. K. (2004). Biosafety, Challenges and National Biosafety Frame work in Zambia. Paper
Presentation. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/biosafety-challenges-and-national-biosafety-frame-work-
zambia
Secretariat, C. (2000). Text and Annexes. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 1–30. https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/
NBA-Home. (2021). National Biosafety Authority. https://www.nbazambia.org.zm. Accessed on: 23-05-2021.