From risks to rights in southern Africa

Scientists and the biotechnology industry have been crucial in determining biotechnology policies and laws. They have emphasised the protection of individual interests - both human and corporate - through tight property laws, global trade rules and narrow regulatory regimes. Within this framework, the only 'acceptable' restriction on biotechnology development is safety. Regulation focuses on containing risks through science-based assessments. Little attention has been given to broader social, cultural or development concerns or, critically, to rights. A rights based approach is key to developing biotechnology policies.

Activists in Zimbabwe have been at the head of the struggle to protect the rights of local communities and farmers. The aim is to protect and ensure access to the genetic resources that form the basis of local livelihoods, culture and knowledge. After many years of active lobbying, they succeeded in getting the African Union to adopt a model law that guides African countries developing national legislation to protect these rights. This model acknowledges the connection between livelihoods, property and social-cultural rights. The rights of farmers, breeders and local communities to their technologies, biological resources and traditional knowledge are protected over individual and corporate rights. Efforts to develop national legislation based on the model are now occurring. A Zimbabwean non-governmental organisation (NGO) recently brought together a range of stakeholders to discuss a 'white paper' on appropriate laws for Zimbabwe.

Consumer groups have also drawn attention to their right to evaluate the risk posed by new agricultural biotechnologies and to make an informed choice. Rights to information, labelling and issues of liability have emerged as key issues. In Zimbabwe, consumer organisations have effectively lobbied for labelling regulations to be adopted, not only on the grounds of safety, but also to ensure that food choices remain consistent with cultural and other belief systems. This marks an important change from narrow risk approaches, where safety is the only consideration. They have, however, maintained a cautious respect for the 'right' of companies to market their products. Voluntary standards are currently being developed through a process led by the Standards Association of Zimbabwe. The dilemma over the importing of GM food aid during 2002 illustrates this difference between risk and rights approaches.

Recognising the rights of citizens as custodians of genetic material or as consumers of food is important, but more needs to be done. These rights are essentially protective, designed to make up for the potential risks associated with new technologies. A rights-based approach also requires a focus on local understandings of 'development' and 'technology'. Building on experiences in India, an NGO-led group in Zimbabwe has begun a process where farmers and community members engage with scientists, corporations and government officials to discuss how suitable future technology may be to their livelihoods.

Making local rights an effective component of biotechnology legislation requires considerable support. This may involve administrative processes, such as the right of access to information and the right to be given reasons for public decisions. Other reforms may include:

• rights to allow the consideration of the potential socio-economic impacts of GM crops prior to commercialisation
• priority-setting exercises, both by public and private sector agencies
• the development of codes of conduct, protocols and laws.

Such provisions may be included in biosafety regulations. To date, mechanisms for assuring wider rights have not been included in legal or other provisions in Zimbabwe. This is the same as many other countries and addressing this is a key challenge for future livelihood and technology policies.

Jennifer Mohamed Katerere
Independent consultant, Harare, now based in Jakarta
katerere@yahoo.com

See also

Mohamed Katerere, J.C. (2003) Rights and risks: challenging biotechnology policy in Zimbabwe, IDS Working Paper 204 www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp204.pdf

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.