PRESS RELEASE PROJECT ON CAPACITY STRENGTHENING FOR THE SAFE MANAGEMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN SUB-SAHARA AFRICA (SABIMA)

Transcription

1 PRESS RELEASE PROJECT ON CAPACITY STRENGTHENING FOR THE SAFE MANAGEMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN SUB-SAHARA AFRICA (SABIMA) Contact Person Dr. Monty Jones Contact Person Dr. Marco Ferroni Executive Director Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Executive Director Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (Embargoed till 29 th April, 2009) The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and The Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA) have signed an agreement to strengthen the capacity for safe biotechnology management in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a 3-year project ( ) for a total investment of $1,265,565 to be managed by FARA and implemented by the Sub-Regional Organisations (SROs) and the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) in six countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. The purpose of the SABIMA Programme is to strengthen Africa s capacity in sound biotechnology management for enhanced food security. The specific objectives are to: Page 1 of 38

2 Update information on the current status of agricultural biotechnology and biosafety in the six countries in Africa. This will include a database of human resources, laboratory infrastructure and research, development and technology transfer activities as well as biosafety legislation and stage of implementation. Identify the capacity building gaps in these countries and the modalities for intervention. Provide training in stewardship in FARA, the Sub-Regional Organisations (SROs) and the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) of the selected countries. Identify and train stewardship leaders in FARA, the SROs and focal persons/champions in stewardship in selected countries, and advocate and promote national buy-in in biotechnology access and use. The project beneficiaries will be the SROs, NARS, FARA itself, policy makers, farmers, seed companies and consumers. Mrs. Lucy Muchoki, a Board Member of FARA who signed the agreement on behalf of Dr. Monty Jones remarked that the project stewardship capacity that will be developed will underpin future initiatives for the proper deployment of proprietary biotechnology in the selected countries. The beneficiary countries will serve as mentors for sister countries in their respective sub-regions for the safe deployment of modern biotechnology. Dr. Marco Feroni, the Executive Director of SFSA remarked that his organization was pleased to be associated with FARA s biotechnology and biosafety policy platform goals that seek to enhance the capacity of African countries to deploy modern biotechnology safely for the enhancement of agricultural production and poverty reduction. FARA is a public organization with head office in Accra, Ghana, that is committed to the increase in agricultural production and poverty reduction through the implementation of the AU-NEPAD Comprehensive Africa s Agricultural Productivity (CAADP) Pillar IV which address research, technology dissemination and adoption. FARA s Mission is to create broad-based improvements in agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets by supporting the SROs in strengthening Africa s capacity for agricultural innovation. FARA is implementing the project as a component of its African Biotechnology Biosafety Policy Platform (ABBPP). Page 2 of 38

3 SFSA is a non-profit organization based in Switzerland whose Mission is to create value for resource-poor small farmers in developing countries through innovation in sustainable agriculture and the activation of value chains. The SFSA s two-pronged approach to improve livelihoods is raising agricultural productivity and linking farmers to markets. Page 3 of 38

4 Annex 1 FARA/SFSA Strengthening capacity for safe biotechnology management in Sub-Sahara Africa (SABIMA) Programme Programme Document 1. Background and justification FARA is the umbrella organization for agricultural research for development in Africa. It is comprised of the Sub-Regional Research Organisations (SROs) and has an extensive network of National Agricultural Research Institutions (NARS) which are essential for the execution of the project. FARA has developed a 10-year Strategic Plan over the period , which provides Networking Support Functions (NSFs) to the SROs to strengthen Africa s capacity for agricultural innovation. The NSF s aim to deliver the following strategic results: Appropriate institutional and organisational arrangements for regional agricultural research established Broad-based stakeholders have access to the knowledge and technology necessary for agricultural innovation Strategic decision making options for agricultural policy, institutions and markets developed Human and institutional capacity for agricultural innovation developed Platforms for agricultural innovation supported FARA has established 5 NSFs to deliver to deliver these strategic goals: Page 4 of 38

5 NSF1 - Advocacy and Resource Mobilization NSF2 - Access to Knowledge and Technologies NSF3 - Regional Policies and Markets NSF4 - Capacity Strengthening NSF5 - Partnerships and Strategic Alliances FARA recognizes the potential of modern technologies including biotechnology as a platform to drive growth in agricultural productivity. Evidence for modern biotechnology stimulation of crop yields and profits for poor farmers in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world exist in the recent reports by James (2007). In spite of this, some African farmers and consumers remain skeptical about the application and use of modern biotechnology products. Both FARA and the Syngenta Foundation recognise that harnessing the potential of biotechnology requires adequate understanding of the technology, its acceptance and appropriate application by African countries. Well-reasoned and carefully articulated awareness raising and advocacy are required to enable parties to engage in meaningful dialogue on the issues to allow the safe application of modern biotechnology. Also technology developers in modern biotechnology are reluctant to transfer proprietary technologies to Africa for the benefit of small holder resource poor farmers due to liability and redress that could arise as a result of poor stewardship of these transferred technologies. FARA seeks to develop the needed capacity for strengthening the use of biotechnology for the benefit of resource-poor farmers in Africa and has created the African Biotechnology and Bio-safety Policy Platform (ABBPP) under its NSF 3 (Regional Policies and Markets). Biotechnology being a cross-cutting theme will benefit from the in-house capacity provided by the other NSFs. This project will form part of the ABBPP platform to strengthen capacity for safe biotechnology management in Sub-Sahara Africa. It will focus on the high potential countries in Sub-Sahara Africa (other than the Republic of South Africa that is already well-advanced in the use of modern biotechnology). The countries selected on the basis of the current deployment of genetically modified (GM) crops are Burkina Faso, Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa, Kenya and Uganda in East Africa, and Malawi in Southern Africa. The beneficiaries within the various countries shall be the national champions to be identified as the animators or change agents. Researchers will also benefit from training in the management of modern biotechnology products. The advocacy and risk communication activities under the project will be intended to allay the concerns of politicians, civil society groups and farmer based organisations might have about the deployment of GM products in agriculture. Page 5 of 38

6 The partner institutions identified for collaboration and implementation of the programme in Annex 1 include: Sub-Regional Research Organisations (SROs), National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and supporting Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). These organizations are listed in Table 3. FARA will strengthen the capacity of the SROs to provide the needed leadership in stewardship at the sub-regional level. 2. Goals and Objectives The specific objectives of the SABIMA are categorized into 3 groups for delivery of the programme: Current status and information gathering 1. Review the current status of agricultural biotechnology and bio-safety in the key countries that are either commercializing or field testing genetically modified organisms in 2010: Burkina Faso, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria and Malawi Capacity building 2. Identify the capacity building gaps in these countries and the modalities for intervention and implement improvements 3. FARA to develop policies, procedures and staff capability to provide leadership in stewardship both at the FARA and the respective SRO levels for the safe and effective use of agricultural biotechnology in these countries. 4. To identify, train and mentor stewardship leaders in FARA, the SROs and stewardship champions in each of these countries Outreach and advocacy 5. FARA, SRO and country stewardship leaders to create an effective, informed network of experts with access to quality information and communication channels for advocacy and promotion of safe practices and agricultural biotechnology utility 6. Enable FARA to establish itself as a leader in stewardship by creating and implementing a programme of interventions with other capacity building organizations, using the best information from industry and the public sector Page 6 of 38

7 Based on the updated information on the current status of biotechnology in the 6 high potential candidate countries in Sub-Sahara Africa, the project will identify capacity gaps and cost effective ways to address the needs of the target countries. Stewardship capacity at FARA will be developed to enhance its catalytic and facilitation role and at the SRO and country levels, champions and coordinators identified and their skills enhanced. The stewardship training acquired will establish best practices in modern biotechnology and lay the foundation for integration in the National Agricultural Research and Development systems. This will in turn, ensure sustainable deployment of modern biotechnology in farming systems for the benefit of resource poor farmers. Through evidence based advocacy and awareness creation, a network of country champions will promote the sustainable development of biotechnology at the national level. The advocacy and resource mobilization NSF will source funds to leverage the SFSA support and sustain the project. The implementation of the project will draw from the existing capacity at FARA. The innovative elements of the programme are: the identification of SRO focal persons, country champions, conduct of the country biotechnology survey from an informed position for country validation and updating, stewardship training and the formation of a network of trainees, to ensure project sustainability after the Syngenta Foundation funding phase. The beneficiary countries will open their doors to seeing is believing visits from non-participating countries that are skeptical about the deployment of modern biotechnologies in their countries. 3. Expertise, competencies and partners FARA has experienced staff in place that will coordinate the execution of the project. The creation of Networking Support Functions (NSFs) provides additional in-house technical capacity in advocacy, communication and capacity strengthening that will add value to project execution. FARA is well-connected on the internet backed by efficient telecommunication services and is located in Accra with good flight connections to most parts of Africa and the outside world. FARA is in a position to provide temporally, financial support to avoid delay in project execution in situations where there is unavoidable delay in funding release from the project donor. A resource person with expertise in stewardship of biotechnologies in particular and project management in general will be needed to facilitate training and mentoring. This will be a major area of competence to be provided. FARA will hire a consultant(s) to lead and shape training materials and also to assist with the in-country biotechnology and biosafety surveys. Page 7 of 38

8 In addition, as a component of the stewardship, an expert on intellectual property (IP) will be needed to lead the subject matter. SFSA will co-ordinate input of stewardship expertise from Syngenta and will seek provision of the best information for use from the private sector. SFSA will also provide information and introduction to key contacts from the private sector and it s Industry Associations that are involved with supporting capacity building in Africa. 4. Outputs, timelines and milestones 4.1 Project Plan Table 1 summarises the outputs, timelines, milestones and measures for each of the project objectives. Detailed work plans for each country and its respective SRO will be developed prior to project implementation with the country coordinators. These will contain all the details needed to deliver success e.g. methodology, time frame, budgets, and beneficiaries. The complete detailed project work plan will be regularly updated and as a minimum will be formally reviewed on a 6-monthly basis with all of the country project leaders and respective SROs. The time frame outlined in the project plan and budget (table 2) will be followed as closely as possible. The expenditure line items following from Table 2 are detailed in Appendix 3). 4.2 Quantifiable measures and beneficiaries The beneficiaries for the core objectives are summarised below together with the quantifiable measures for the outputs. These will be used as part of the project review process to track progress against the target outputs. 1. An updated comprehensive report on the status of biotechnology and bio-safety in select countries in Africa produced. Quantifiable measure: Document produced of international publishable standard Target beneficiaries: Government planners, donor agencies and private sector individuals (e.g. importers of GM products, large scale farmers). Page 8 of 38

9 2. Gaps for support in biotechnology and bio-safety identified for each country and modalities for value added intervention identified within the survey report. Quantifiable measure: Document produced; number and types of gaps in biotechnology/bio-safety listed; number of possible collaborating donors indicated and their roles in gap filling indicated in the survey report Target beneficiaries: FARA, SROs and development partners. 3. FARA to develop policies, procedures and staff capability at FARA and SRO levels to provide leadership in stewardship for the safe and effective use of agricultural biotechnology in these countries. Quantifiable measure: FARA policy in stewardship developed in consultation with stakeholders (including the SROs and NARS) and implemented by FARA, SROs and NARS. FARA Management Procedures document with stewardship definitions, good stewardship criteria and selected best practices from industry and public research produced that will guide production of Standard Operating Procedures at the Institutional and individual staff working level. Target beneficiaries: FARA, SROs, NARS, seed companies, small and large scale commercial farms 4. SRO focal persons, champions for biotechnology and country level co-coordinators identified, trained and mentored in stewardship Quantifiable measure: In 2009, 1 SRO focal person, 1 Project Coordinator and 1 Country Champion identified for each country. In all, 3 SRO focal persons, 6 Country Coordinators and 6 Country Champions identified for the 6 Project Countries. 3 FARA Stewardship Trainees with leader identified. Training report of stewardship training for 3 SROs, 6 Country and 3 FARA staff produced. In 2010 Country Coordinators receive mentorship for start of in-country training in same year. Minimum in-country stewardship training beneficiaries per country per year include: Seed company/agri-business reps. = 2; Country Champions = 1; Farmer-Based Organisations =2; NARS = 2. Total minimum stewardship training beneficiary per country for each of 2010 and 2011 is 7. Target beneficiaries: FARA stewardship leaders, SRO focal persons, country champions and coordinators. 5. FARA, SRO and country stewardship leaders to create an effective, informed network of experts with access to quality information and communication channels for advocacy and promotion of safe practices and agricultural biotechnology utility. Page 9 of 38

10 This will include country champions and coordinators being used as conduits for advocacy; awareness creation on biotechnology and bio-safety activities and risk communication with researchers, key government officials and civil society. Quantifiable measure: Starting from late , FARA, SRO and country network of stewardship experts developed and web-based stewardship information provided by FARA. Starting from 2010, 12 persons per country receive stewardship training within the country from the country Project Coordinators. The in-country 12 person institutional affiliation are the NARS, private sector agri-business/seed companies and farmer-based organizations. Post-training activities of beneficiaries are monitored and reported by the Country Coordinator. SRO focal persons provide assessment reports on country training. Beginning from politicians and policy makers trained in risk communications or made aware of biotechnology and bio-safety developments each year in each country. Over the above period ( ) 240 persons from civil society, media, farmers and NGOs per year receive risk communication training or exposure to biotechnology and bio-safety issues in a training workshop in each country. Impact of risk communication training is reported by country Project Coordinators. SROs provide sub-regional perspectives on risk communication. Target beneficiaries: Policy makers, researchers, civil society, media and farmers in country of project implementation 6. Enable FARA to establish itself as a leader in stewardship by creating an integrated programme of interventions with other capacity building organizations, using the best information from industry and the public sector Quantifiable measure: Activity reports of FARA stewardship team, SRO and in-country champions. Number of projects to which knowledge of stewardship training is applied noted and key project success indicators (harmony, clean audit reports, targets achieved) noted.12 train the trainers comprising 6 from target countries and 3 from FARA and 3 from SROs undergo training.. Target beneficiaries: FARA, SRO and in-country Project Coordinators. 5. Budget The budget and phasing of the costs are shown in Table 2 and are aligned with the objectives and deliverables in Table 1. The expenditure lines component in Appendix 3 are based on the activity Page 10 of 38

11 costs in Table 2 and will guide the disbursement of funds. The budget will be discussed and realigned if there are changes to the programme of work that have been agreed in advance with SFSA. 6. Project management 6.1. Project approaches for implementation The project at a strategy, policy and project management level will be led by FARA. At an operational implementation level it will be led using a partnering approach with SROs and the NARS. Close communication and discussion will be required to determine the most cost-effective and best ways to ensure delivery of the goals and outputs for the project. In some cases implementation with be done by the SROs with the NARS, in others jointly with FARA and in some cases also perhaps by FARA with attendance by the SROs. The most appropriate approach for each project objective and country will be decided on a case-by-case basis in full consultation with the relevant SRO and NARS. 6.2 Project leadership and governance A full time, dedicated and experienced Project Manager will be assigned by FARA to initiate, lead and ensure delivery of the outputs. Appendix 1 outlines the experience of Professor Walter Alhassan. A Project Assistant will be assigned to provide support to the Project Manager. Both the Project Manager and Project Assistant (both 100 % full time equivalents) will be charged to the project. The Project Assistant will be a member of staff of the Regional Policies and market Networking Support Function (NSF3), and will receive support from the sister NSF s like Advocacy and Resource Mobilization, Access to Knowledge and Technology (communication and information dissemination), and Capacity Strengthening and Partnerships during the course of project execution. Page 11 of 38

12 The sponsor for the project is the Director of the Regional Policies and Market Networking Support Function (NSF 3), acting on behalf of the FARA Executive Director. The Project Manager will report to the FARA Executive Director. 6.3 Project initiation As soon as news of the project approval reaches FARA there will be an announcement to its management and Board, and a placement on its website. Placement on the FARA website will be an important initial step to sensitize its partners, especially the participating countries and SROs. In preparation for the launch of the project in January, 2009, initial steps will be taken to draw the terms of reference for the biotechnology survey and the search for a consultant(s) to undertake the survey. The building for project execution will start at the FARA level and the contribution of the various NSFs to the project defined. The FARA group to constitute the stewardship team will be identified. FARA will start the process of recruiting a Project Assistant on commencement of the project. The FARA Project Manager will be the point of contact for SFSA and will be available for consultation for addressing any unforeseen difficulties. Specific correspondence to SROs and the Heads of NARS of the project countries, namely, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Malawi will be undertaken to outline the project details and to seek their cooperation. This will be followed up at the start of 2009 with country visits to present the project, discuss funding arrangements, project management at country level and the identification of a country level project coordinator who will be member of the NARS. A wellconnected champion will be identified as the facilitator for dialogue with the government (advocacy) to promote biotechnology and the execution of awareness creation activities/information dissemination at government level. Champions will also be identified in other NARS other than the one housing the country coordinator. 6.4 Project monitoring, reporting and completion The Project Leader and Project Assistant together with the SROs will provide continuous monitoring of the project and will take corrective action if problems start to occur. Page 12 of 38

13 Quarterly statements of accounts will be prepared at both FARA and country level. Money will be released in tranches to partner institutions on submission of the quarterly financial statements. Both the detailed 6-monthly reports on the project and the quarterly financial reports will facilitate project monitoring. Periodic visits to countries for project monitoring or participation in country project activities where back-to-office reports are written will also contribute to project monitoring. Annual meetings will be held at the FARA headquarters that shall involve the country project leader, the lead champion (facilitator of dialogue with government and other public or private institutions) from each country and the FARA stewardship team will meet to discuss progress of work and chart the way forward to the next activity year. A comprehensive final report will be written at the end of the 3-year project with suggestions on areas of project continuation under existing national resources and new areas of action suggested by the project conclusion report that might require identified development partner support. 6.5 Critical success and risk management The following critical success factors and interventions have been highlighted in the project proposal. They will be carefully monitored as part of the project programme: Country champions The identification of country champions is a necessary first step in gaining access to key government officials and organizations that will facilitate the advocacy and awareness creation activities. It will facilitate the identification of other country champions for stewardship training. FARA will partner with the SROs to agree the selection of the most appropriate individuals Networking Effective networking of stewardship trainees and the monitoring of the application of the knowledge to biotechnology process management will depend on the effectiveness of the training received and on the motivation and communication skills of the individuals selected. A country project leader in the NARS that will be the link with the FARA based coordinator will assist the implementation of the project at country level Timing of funds Page 13 of 38

14 Timely release of funds especially at the beginning of the project will enable the start of the country surveys as well as the identification of project champions and leaders to begin the advocacy and stewardship training for the proper management of biotechnology products and processes Training The training in stewardship at the FARA, SRO and country levels will profit from follow up mentoring (hands-on training) in specific areas of biotechnology or bio-safety product or process handling. It will use a train-the-trainer concept and will have 2 parts: initial awareness and knowledge training, followed up with a consolidation and revision training that assesses comprehension and readiness for training others. It will be tailored to individuals issues and needs and will be an important ongoing role in the SROs. Such training will not cover bioskills development that may require biotechnology research and development, bio-safety specific skills like risk assessment, laboratory infrastructure, specific training in biotechnology tools and skills in biodiversity conservation and use. Such bioskills capacity strengthening will be the subject of a 2 nd phase SFSA or other donor support. The stewardship training will benefit from production of standardized management practices and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Information from the private sector will be provided by SFSA for adaptation and preparation of training manuals for the assigned trainers to use on the training courses Motivation and commitment to the project Success of the project will depend on the commitment of country participants and the SRO focal persons. The promptness in project execution and reporting, demonstrated transparency, and the general enthusiasm of the country project leaders and champions will determine success or otherwise. To ensure that this is the case, the project will have provisions for the project coordinator to keep in constant touch with project participating countries. Also attendance costs for training and operation costs will be paid to country level collaborators and SRO focal persons as appropriate Country-level problem solving FARA will determine with the relevant SRO the best way to resolve issues at the country level. Disagreements or misunderstandings will be reported to the Head of the NARS with a copy to the FARA Project Manager. FARA together with the relevant SRO will endeavor to resolve the issue at country level and a report made by the NARS project leader to FARA with copy to the Head of his establishment. Where resolution fails at country level, FARA will intervene through initially its Project Manager and a report made to the NSF 3 Director Page 14 of 38

15 with copy to the FARA Executive Director and the Syngenta Foundation duly notified. If this fails the NSF 3 Director will liaise with the Executive Director to resolve the matter. Where there are legal implications the FARA legal adviser s input shall be sought. The constant dialogue mechanism instituted (country level/sro and FARA frequent contact, and FARA- Syngenta Foundation contacts through the identified contact person) will minimize the likelihood of any major problem with project execution Non-Governmental Organisations The project is being made very transparent on both FARA s and SFSA s website and is likely to become widely known. Adverse media or coverage should be anticipated as much as possible. FARA needs to prepare position statements and be ready to respond as appropriate to adverse external media or communications. All public communications should be discussed with SFSA before release. Page 15 of 38

16 Table 1. Expected Outputs, Timelines and Milestones Current status and information gathering 0. Establish project team and network of contributing experts, initiation of the project programme, reviews and project completion Activities Countries/Organisation Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Initiation of the project Announcement to FARA board and community Communication with SROs and Heads of NARS launching the project and seeking their support and input Readiness to rebut negative NGO activities Establishing core FARA team and network of consultants and experts FARA network Website communication March 2009 Global transparency and clear messages SROs and NARS Formal communication March 2009 Support and willingness to partner. Financial considerations agreed FARA communications together with SFSA Position statements on stewardship project April 2009 Robust positions ready on potential negative arguments from NGOs that can be released if needed within 24 hours Establishment of FARA stewardship team with leader identified. FARA Team finalised and operational Recruit Project Assistant FARA Project Assistant named and assumes duty Terms of reference created Project manager with Viv Agreed set of terms and for recruitment of Anthony scope outlined for training Q2, 2009 Members have allocated and agreed time from management and are operational Q2, 2009 Working from 1 April 09 Q2, 2009 Easy to read and clear/approved by Page 16 of 38

17 stewardship consultants to be hired to do training External experts/consultants and target beneficiaries for training named Information documents and key contacts provided Private sector network operational CGIAR stewardship approach reviewed Partnership established with FARA FARA SFSA FARA, Project Manager CGIAR FARA Training ready to be started Harmonised approach Q2, 2009 April 2009 Q2, 2009 Q2, July 2009 (timing dependent on readiness of review by CGIAR) FARA/SFSA Consultants agree to provide training and terms of reference signed Training programme content (phase 1) signed off and ready to start Best documents supplied for consultants and Project Manager to adapt and use Effective communication channels established and willingness to provide support from private sector organisations Resolution of any differences, agreed common approach In-country coordinator selection In-country champions identified Preparatory country visits to introduce projects and All 6 countries FARA(partnering with SROs) All 6 countries FARA(partnering with SROs) All 6 countries FARA (through SROs) Regular information flow Coordinators named Q2, 2009 Individuals are assigned and supported by their management and operational, time allocated and operational List provided, people on May 2009 Individuals are assigned board and motivated and supported by their management, time Back-to-office report with list of in-country partners allocated and operational Q3, 2009 Agreed partners, financial commitment and plan Page 17 of 38

18 identify key partners. provided. agreed for implementation Project monitoring and reporting Annual Project plans (overview and at country level) FARA with SROs, NARS and EFSA 2009 May 2009 (for all countries April 2009 (first 3 countries) Agreed and operational Project progress and status reviews FARA, SROs and NARS representatives, (with SFSA) 2010 December December 2010 Status report and meetings July 2009 (interim mid as required (together with year) financial updates) January 2010 (final 2009) July 2010 (interim mid year) January 2011 (final 2010) July 2011 (interim mid year) January 2012 (final project and financial report) Status and progress agreed with SFSA and release of funds Final project and financial report FARA with SFSA January 2012 (final project and financial report) Project completed, met goals, on time and to budget Strong partnership and network established on stewardship Page 18 of 38

19 Table 1. Expected Outputs, Timelines and Milestones Current status and information gathering 1. Review the current status of agricultural biotechnology and bio-safety in the key countries that are either commercializing or field testing genetically modified organisms. Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Comprehensive review of current status on biotechnology and biosafety Terms of reference for report to be finalised (Key issues to be highlighted but capability aspects minor portion and different consultants may be considered for this aspect) ASARECA Kenya and Uganda, WECARD/CORAF Ghana, Nigeria and Burkina Faso, SADC/FANR Malawi To be executed by biotech survey consultant (Consultant 1). Report to include the following headings and recommendations i. Key institutions in the country and in the sub-region undertaking research, training, regulatory activities and the commercialization of biotechnology. ii. iii. Inventory of the ongoing or planned biotechnology activities listing the key actors and their roles. Number and types of biotechnology laboratories operating in the Q2, 2009 TOR enables comprehensive review but capability aspects will be addressed elsewhere) Page 19 of 38

20 country. iv. Database of personnel at the national and subregional level undertaking biotechnology and biosafety activities together with their qualifications. Contact details should be provided. v. Level of commercialization of biotechnology products in the country and in the sub-region. vi. Biotechnology companies and their agents in the country and size of the operation. vii. Status of biosafety legislation, the focal point (link institution to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Biosafety Clearing House. Page 20 of 38

21 Ministerial responsibility for biosafety in country. viii. Awareness of biotechnology/bios afety ix. Available national biotechnology policy and work plan. x. Available subregional activities in biotechnology and biosafety and nature of country commitment to these. xi. Donors operating in the country and or sub-region in biotechnology and biosafety. Indicate the interrelation of the various donor assisted biotechnology/bios afety projects. xii. Identify gaps and opportunities for agro-biotechnology Page 21 of 38

22 xiii. xiv. interventions that will address food security in the country. Suggested subregional framework for biotechnology and biosafety including the roles of centers of excellence as a platform for networking among scientists. Include current efforts at harmonization of biosafety and biotechnology in the sub-region and the potential for sub-regional trade in biotech crops (GMOs). Role of the SROs, IARCS, RECs, AU and its agencies and the multinational biotechnology companies and national agencies in strengthening Page 22 of 38

23 biotechnology capacity in the country and subregion. Consultants identified and commissioned Comprehensive report completed for review use ASARECA Kenya and Uganda, CORAF/WECARD Ghana, Nigeria and Burkina Faso, (SADC/FANR) Malawi Written country and 3 subregional overview reports Q2, 2009-task commissioned and started May st draft interim report produced containing material issues Q3, 2009-final report presented October 2009 Preferred consultants accept contracts that have excellent in-country working knowledge as well as providing if possible international perspective International publishable standard with full sources used and bibliography Easy to read and clear Published on FARA website Capacity building 2. Identify the capacity building gaps in key countries and the modalities for intervention and implement improvements Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Terms of reference defined for review of capability assessment Project manager with Viv Anthony Agreed TOR Q2, 2009 Clear and proportionate for funds available Page 23 of 38

24 Identify consultants for review of capabilities Assessment of knowhow, competency and facilities and identify key stewardship risks and gaps requiring intervention Review of existing capacity building programmes and effectiveness Key people identified in other public and private organizations (e.g. CGIAR, Gates, NEPAD, AfricaBio, Croplife international) Liaison with other capacity building organizations and preparation of integrated plan of interventions (interventions involving the NARs and partners etc) Implementation of interventions For all countries Stewardship Consultant 1. All 6 project countries partnering with SROs All 6 project countries partnering with SROs All 6 project countries partnering with SROs All 6 project countries partnering with SROs All 6 project countries partnering with SROs List of suitable consultant April 2009 Comprehensive list of consultants that could be used and clarity on availability Report covering recommendations and interventions required Q3-Q4, 2009 Clear and specific recommendations on who and how interventions should be made Report and actions needed Q2 and Q3, 2009 Report that explains programmes, similarities/overlaps and differences, interrelationships and issues for this project List of players and contact numbers/ s Phase 1 contacts made Phase 2 Full review of plans Implementation report May 2009 June 2009 Q3-4Q, 2009 Q4 2009; all 2010 and 2011 Comprehensive and forward looking on initiatives being started e.g. CGIAR Good relationships built and agreement reached on where joint approaches should be used or go solo Substantive correction of actions taken and improvements made by Page 24 of 38

25 end of project No inadvertent releases by NARs during Capacity building 3. FARA to develop policies, procedures and staff capability to provide leadership in stewardship for the safe and effective use of agricultural biotechnology in these countries Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Identify stewardship mentor to assist FARA develop stewardship policy. FARA All 6 countries through the SROs Stewardship consultant 1 Internationally competent person appointed to support development of policy and management practices (SOPs) Policy to be finalised by 3Q, 2009 FARA policy and management practices documents drafted and approved FARA in consultation with SROs and NARs Stewardship consultant 1 Clear and owned policy and management practices documents Policy to be finalised by Q3, 2009 Management practices by September 09 Peer reviewed document produced that is agreed with FARA, SROs and NARs. Best practice incorporated from private sector Capacity building 4. To identify, train and mentor stewardship leaders in FARA, SRO and stewardship champions in each of the key countries Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Identify trainees in FARA, SROs and countries and train. FARA All 6 countries partnering with the SROs 12 trainees trained 3 FARA, 3SRO and 6 country trainer trainees identified Q2, 2009 Training well received and individuals committed to next phase Page 25 of 38

26 Draw training program and train Follow-up on trainee competency and readiness for trainees to do further training of staff ( train the trainer concept ) FARA All 6 countries partnering with SROs Stewardship consultant 2 Stewardship consultant 2 Stewardship plan developed for on-going projects drawn by FARA and 6 countries Consolidation of training, learning consolidation and certification given and signoff of trainees to be assigned as trainers and commence rollout further within the organisation Q2, 2009 Q3-Q4, Q2, 2010 Q2-Q4, 2010 Training programme roll-out in countries. Trainees listed; Training records at FARA SRO and Country trainees identified; Composition of country trainees: NARS-2; Seed Companies/Agribusiness-2; Farmer-Based Organisation (FBO)-2; Country Champion-1. Total per country per year starting from 2010= 7 Majority of trainees pass certification and given approval to roll-out programme in their organizations Completed on time Outreach and advocacy 5. FARA, SRO and country stewardship leaders to create an effective, informed network of experts with access to quality information and communication channels for advocacy and promotion of safe practices and agricultural biotechnology utility Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Develop country network All 6 countries Networks listed of experts in stewardship. FARA through the SROs Q3, 2009: Projects listed for application of good stewardship practices in FARA and in countries. Clear operational network established Page 26 of 38

27 Monitor local and global information on stewardship and package for dissemination. Identify channels or modalities for dissemination All 6 countries FARA through the SROs All 6 countries FARA through the SROs Packaged stewardship information Web-based information available on FARA website; radio, print and television engaged for information dissemination Q3, 2009: Network of experts established. Q4, 2009 Stewardship information packaged for dissemination Q4, : In-country training on stewardship advertised Outreach and advocacy 6. Enable FARA to establish itself as a leader in stewardship by creating and implementing an integrated programme of interventions with other capacity building organizations, using the best information from industry and the public sector Activities Countries Output/deliverable Timeline/milestones Measure Identify stewardship best practice organizations that are doing external outreach and establish linkage for information sharing. (interventions involving external players, like regulators, seed companies, public, government etc)) All 6 countries FARA through the SROs Best practices information gathered put on FARA website. Activity reports from countries indicating those meeting the criteria for successful stewardship. Q1, 2011 Q1, 2010 FARA to share the information with All 6 countries FARA through the SROs Stewardship information put on FARA website. FARA is one of countries meeting criteria for good stewardship in projects. Good stewardship becomes one of the criteria for continued funding support from FARA. Q1, 2010 FARA website has information on project Page 27 of 38

28 countries Outreach programme implemented i.e. Awareness creation exercises started and continuous. Politicians and policy makers from each of 6 countries made aware of biotechnology and biosafety developments 120 politicians and policy makers trained in risk communications or made aware of biotechnology and bio-safety developments each year in each country. Q4 and throughout 2010, 2011 and 2012 stewardship. Target numbers for contact and training achieved Actions delivered on time and good feedback received Routine information submitted to government officials on current development in biotechnology 240 persons from civil society, media, farmers, NGOs per year receive risk communication training or exposure to biotechnology and bio-safety issues in a training workshop Page 28 of 38

29 Table 2. Activity timelines and budget over Activity Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Budget $ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Budget Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Budget Survey (consultant time, travel, per diem) 23, Stewardship consultants (time, travel. per diem) 75,000 50,000 50,000 Printing and publishing survey report 5000 Identification of country project leader and 13,428 7,000 0 Champions in countries, SROs and FARA group for stewardship. Some travel (1 FARA staff) Stewardship training* at FARA HQ (3 FARA 17, staff, 3 SROs and 6 country (Project Coordinators). In country stewardship training*, 6 countries, 65,100 32,000 32,000 decreased trainees after training preceded by mentoring. Networking country stewardship trainees, SRO 16,068 16,068 16,068 trainees and FARA stewardship group-involves exchange of experiences within and across countries; forming pressure groups to lobby governments, etc. Travel to 3 countries by FARA where necessary. Advocacy for biotech and bio-safety through 34,836 34,836 34,836 country champs. (involves FARA support, travel for 1 staff) Awareness creation, communicating biotech and routine information dissemination on biotech 116, ,415 and bio-safety (includes 1 day workshops/fora). 200,473 Support to fill gaps from biotech survey within 15,000 15,000 Page 29 of 38

30 scope of present study (e.g. kick starting stalled operations of National Bio-safety Committees; biotech information support needs; operationalising collaborative mechanisms among donors in biotech). Monitoring activities in country. Involves correspondence and occasional travel Project report Project Coordinator and Assistant s time in managing project including work plan development and oversight activities and report writing Draft proposal for Next Phase study (areas to receive attention following survey conducted and following the initial 3-year project); Budget Totals Overall Activity Budget 13,428 13,428 13,428 64,900 68,837 64, , , ,306 $1,265,596 *Includes exposure to IP and relevance to biotech industry and research. Page 30 of 38

31 Table 3 List of Partnering institutions Partner Organisation Acronym Region or Country Location 1. Sub-Regional Research Organisations (SROs) West African Council for Agricultural Research and Development CORAF/WECARD West Africa Dakar, Senegal Association for the Support of Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa ASARECA Eastern and Central Africa Entebbe, Uganda Southern African Development Coordination Conference- Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate SADC-FANR Southern Africa Gaborone, Botswana 2. National Agricultural Research Systems Page 31 of 38

32 Environmental Agriculture Research Institute INERA-French acronym Burkina Faso Ouagadougou, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission-Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture Research Institute Kwabenya GAEC-BNARI Ghana Accra, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Savanna Agriculture Research Institute CSIR-SARI Ghana Nyankpala, Tamale Plant Protection and Regulatory Services PPRS Ghana Accra, University of Ghana (UG)- Department of Crop Science Ghana Accra National Biotechnology Development Agency NABDA Nigeria Abuja Biotechnology Advanced Laboratory BAL Nigeria Sheda, Abuja Institute of Agricultural Research Nigeria Samaru, Zaria Page 32 of 38

33 Jomo Kenyatta University Kenya Kenya Agriculture Research Institute KARI Kenya Nairobi National Council for Science and Technology NCST Kenya Nairobi National Agriculture Research Organisation- Kawanda Agriculture Research Institute NARO-KARI Uganda Makarere University Uganda Kampala National Research Council of Malawi NRCM Malawi Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agricultural Research, Malawi Malawi Page 33 of 38

34 3.Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) African Agriculture Technology Foundation AATF) Kenya Nairobi Programme for Biosafety Systems coordinated by the International Food Policy Research Institute PBS/IFPRI USA Washington, DC International Service for Agri-biotech Applications Afri-Centre ISAAA Kenya Nairobi Biotechnology- Ecology Research and Outreach Consortium BioEROC Malawi Zomba AfricaBio South Africa Pretoria Page 34 of 38

35 Page 35 of 38

36 Appendix 1 Walter S Alhassan - Summary of experience Prof. Walter S. Alhassan will be the Project Manager and provide leadership and manage the project. He has a PhD in Animal Science and taught for many years in the university system in both Ghana and Nigeria. He has extensive experience in institutional and project management. For nearly 10 years he was Director-General of the Ghana Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Until July this year he was the West and Central African Coordinator of the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) with mandate for Ghana and Mali. This is a global project funded by the USAID and executed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). He handled this project successfully for 5 years. He successfully lobbied for the passage of the Ghana legislative instrument that has paved the way for the conduct of confined field trials involving GM crops. In addition to that he coordinated for West Africa, a sister project in Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project phase II (ABSPII) coordinated by Cornell University and also funded by the USAID. He also has undertaken extensive surveys in biotechnology and biosafety in West and Central Africa. He has undertaken consultation in various projects in agriculture including the one by Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on the Seed Systems in Ghana. In 2003 he led a review team to the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture sponsored Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) project. Walter Alhassan has just finished an Advanced Certificate Course in Biosafety and Plant Genetic Resources Management by distance learning from the University of Geneva, Switzerland and is awaiting the result. Walter Alhassan is currently the coordinator of the FARA African Biotechnology Biosafety Policy (ABBPP) which he is helping to establish. His current abridged CV is attached on request. He will devote full time to this project (100% Full Time Equivalent). Plans exist to get Walter Alhassan an assistant in the coordination of the project in the very near future. Both Walter Alhassan and the assistant s time will be charged to the project. As member of staff of the regional policies and market Networking Support Function, he will receive support from the sister NSF s like Advocacy and Resource Mobilization, Access to knowledge and technology (communication and information dissemination), and Capacity strengthening and Partnerships during the course of project execution. 36