| Centers/Programs | IFPRI |
| Target Regions | Asia, CWANA, LAC, SSA |
| Countries of Planned Research | | Potential Beneficiary Countries |
 | |  |
|
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Philippines, Uganda |
| | |
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Philippines, Uganda |
|
|
| CGIAR Priorities |
1A - Conservation and characterization of staple crops 1B - Promoting conservation ands characterization of under-utilized plant genetic resources to increase the income of the poor 1C - Conservation of indigenous livestock 2C - Enhancing nutritional quality and safety 2D - Genetic enhancement of selected species to increase income generation by the poor 3A - Increasing income from fruit and vegetables 3B - Income increases from livestock 4D - Sustainable agro-ecological intensification in low- and high-potential environments 5A - Science and technology policies and institutions 5C - Rural institutions and their governance 5D - Improving research and development options to reduce rural poverty and vulnerability Development Activities - Development Activities Stand-alone Training - Stand-alone Training
|
| Financing Sources |
Members: Brazil, FAO, IDB, IDRC, IFAD, Japan, Sweden, United States, World Bank Non Members: Agricultural Research Council, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Confederacion Colombiana de Algodon, Ethiopia, IKP Trust, Mercy Corps, Others, OXFAM, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Unres+Other Sources, Wageningen University |
Project Overview and Rationale
The development of effective biosafety systems is important, both to encourage the growth of domestic agricultural R&D and to ensure safe access to new products and technologies developed elsewhere. The absence of a functional biosafety regulatory framework hinders public- and private-sector investment in agricultural development and makes products of modern agricultural research unavailable in a country.
Recent advances in agricultural applications of modern biotechnology, when properly applied, have a significant potential to contribute to sustainable gains in agricultural productivity and to reducing poverty and enhancing food security in developing regions. A growing body of literature exists documenting the farm-level benefits of genetically-modified (GM) plant varieties, such as introducing new traits providing enhanced resistance to diseases, potential tolerance to drought and soils contaminated with high concentrations of salt or heavy metals, and improved productivity. The potential for adverse environmental and human health consequences arising from the introduction of GM plants into agriculture has led to the development of regulatory regimes that are specifically applied to assessing the biosafety of these products. Developing countries face issues of how to foster a regulatory environment characterized by transparency and enabling innovation, and how to provide an effective system of accountability and stakeholder participation to build public confidence in decisionmaking. Goal and Objectives The purpose of the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) is to empower partner countries for science-based biosafety decisionmaking, while strengthening capacity to implement national biosafety systems. The overall goal of the program is to more effectively address biosafety within a sustainable development strategy, anchored by agriculture-led economic growth, trade, and environment objectives. By the completion of the PBS program in 2013, it is intended that the following strategic outcomes will be accomplished: - A regulatory decisionmaking system that enables safe products to get to market is in place in partner countries in Africa and Asia that have demonstrated commitment to applying new biotechnologies in their food and agricultural sector.
- Partner countries with established regulatory systems have efficiently responded to emerging requirements resulting from international agreements or post-commercialization requirements.
- Robust regulatory approaches and risk analysis processes for biotechnology applications and commodity trade, based on commissioned scientific and policy research and regional consultations and collaboration with national and regional partners, have been incorporated into decisionmaking processes in target countries.
- Regulatory authorities and scientific institutions in target countries have conducted and implemented regulatory assessments, systematic stakeholder analyses, and timely decisionmaking on a pipeline of promising agricultural biotechnologies and traded commodities.
|
Project Outputs
| Output Title | 1:
Regional and subregional models and initiatives for biosafety policies and procedures in Africa and Asia developed. |
| Output Description |
Conduct, in collaboration with (sub-) regional organization: - Analysis of biosafety regulatory frameworks and options for regional collaboration
- Regional policy consultations
- Development of proposed regional guidelines
|
|
| CGIAR Priorities | |
| Countries of Planned Research | |
| Intended Users |
Policymakers Biosafety regulators, national biosafety committees Representatives of regional policy and trade bodies Donor agencies Commercial entities and traders |
| Outcome |
Regional exchange of biosafety data, guidelines and templates GM biosafety decisions endorsed by neighboring countries Regulatory systems more efficient in terms of procedures and costs Improved enabling environment for trade in GM varieties |
| Impact |
Accelerated review and, where relevant, introduction of new technologies that contribute to sustainable gains in agricultural productivity, reductions in poverty, enhanced food security and nutritional status." |
Output Target
| Year |
Target Type |
Target Description |
2011 |
Policy strategies |
Common guidelines and templates by subregional trade and policy bodies completed: APEC |
2011 |
Policy strategies |
Common guidelines and templates by subregional trade and policy bodies completed: COMESA |
|
| Output Title | 2:
Research, new knowledge, and information for biosafety policy development and regulatory decisionmaking. |
| Output Description |
Policy analysis and outreach related to: - Trade implications of biosafety regulations
- Incorporating socioeconomic considerations
- Emerging legal requirements such as liability
|
|
| CGIAR Priorities | |
| Countries of Planned Research | |
| Intended Users |
Policymakers Biosafety regulators, national biosafety committees Representatives of regional policy and trade bodies Donor agencies Private sector |
| Outcome |
Enhanced understanding of social and economic implications of GM policy options and alternatives Regulatory systems more efficient in terms of procedures and costs Evidence-based biosafety policies adopted Comparative analyses of regulatory systems |
| Impact |
Accelerated review and, where relevant, introduction of new technologies that contribute to sustainable gains in agricultural productivity, reductions in poverty, enhanced food security and nutritional status." |
Output Target
| Year |
Target Type |
Target Description |
2011 |
Policy strategies |
Policy compendiums and papers analyzing country experiences, policy options, stakeholder mapping, and best practices. |
2011 |
Policy strategies |
Science-based policies, biosafety strategies and procedures for confined GMO releases implemented in PBS partner countries: Malawi, Nigeria, Vietnam. |
2011 |
Policy strategies |
Science-based policies, biosafety strategies and regulatory procedures for general GMO releases implemented in PBS partner countries: Kenya, Uganda, and Philippines. |
|
| Output Title | 3:
Enabling environment enhanced for confined field trials and general releases, emphasizing a risk management approach. |
| Output Description |
Technical assistance and guidance to: - Development of enabling guidelines and operating procedures
- Regulatory agencies considering field trial applications and general releases
- Applicants developing biosafety dossiers
|
|
| CGIAR Priorities | |
| Countries of Planned Research |
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Philippines, Uganda |
|
| Intended Users |
Biosafety regulators, national and institutional biosafety committees Implementing agencies, e.g. plant quarantine offices, plant variety offices, food safety agencies Public R&D organizations, universities, private sector |
| Outcome |
Practical and science-based implementing regulations and operating procedures adopted Applications for field trials submitted, and reviewed by competent authorities. |
| Impact |
Product development progress for adoption of publicly-developed GM products relevant to small-scale farming systems that contribute to sustainable gains in agricultural productivity, reductions in poverty, enhanced food security and nutritional status." |
Output Target
| Year |
Target Type |
Target Description |
2011 |
Practices |
Confined field trials completed in PBS partner countries: Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Vietnam, and Philippines. |
2011 |
Practices |
Implementing regulations for general releases adopted in PBS partner countries: Kenya, Uganda |
|
| Output Title | 4:
Capacity and skills for biosafety/food safety risk assessment, risk management and stakeholder mapping enhanced. |
| Output Description |
Capacity and skills development through: - Supporting environmental risk assessment research (competitive grants)
- Technical advice and assistance
- On-the-job training and workshops
|
|
| CGIAR Priorities | |
| Countries of Planned Research |
Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Philippines, Uganda |
|
| Intended Users |
Public R&D organizations Universities Biosafety regulators, and national biosafety committees Policymakers Donor agencies |
| Outcome |
Strengthened science base for biosafety assessments Strengthened review and decisionmaking skills and confidence among regulators, policymakers, and scientists Strengthened skills in stakeholder analysis to guide policy development, implementation, and communication |
| Impact |
Improved policies, communication, and decisionmaking procedures based on local science and local analyses Safe use of biotechnology and GM products in partner countries that contribute to sustainable gains in agricultural productivity and to reducing poverty and enhancing food security " |
Output Target
| Year |
Target Type |
Target Description |
2010 |
Capacity |
Enhanced skills for biosafety/food safety risk assessment and risk management among regulatory decisionmakers: Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines. |
2010 |
Capacity |
Local research capacity expanded to undertake biosafety/food safety risk assessment and risk management through competitive grants: the Philippines. |
2011 |
Capacity |
Enhanced competency among regulatory decisionmakers, research institutions, and policymakers to conduct stakeholder assessments related to biotechnology product development and deployment. |
2011 |
Capacity |
Enhanced competency and efficiency among regulatory agencies: Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Philippines, Vietnam. |
2011 |
Capacity |
Enhanced skills for biosafety/food safety risk assessment and risk management among regulatory decisionmakers: Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Philippines, Vietnam. |
2012 |
Capacity |
Enhanced competency and efficiency among regulatory agencies: Malawi, Nigeria. |
2012 |
Capacity |
Enhanced skills for biosafety/food safety risk assessment and risk management among regulatory decisionmakers. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Note: Financial Tables, Target Regions, CGIAR Priorities and Financing Sources show aggregated data for more than one MTP project and in particular for: - Subtheme 9.1: Genetic Resource Policies for the Poor (GRP 1) - Subtheme 9.2: Agricultural Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (GRP 31) - Subtheme 9.3: Program on Biosafety Systems (GRP 34)
|
|
Allocation of Member, Non-Member Grants and other sources to projects, 2009-2011 in $millions
| Project |
Member |
Actual 2009 |
Estimated 2010 |
Proposal 2011 |
Project Total | 6.841 | 7.879 | 7.706 |
| Theme 9: Science and Technology | Member | Brazil | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| FAO | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| IDB | 0.040 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| IDRC | 0.057 | 0.075 | 0.087 |
| IFAD | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Japan | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Sweden | 0.046 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| United States | 3.842 | 3.623 | 3.496 |
| World Bank | 0.000 | 0.085 | 0.069 |
| Non Member | Agricultural Research Council | 0.104 | 0.165 | 0.192 |
| Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | 0.858 | 0.988 | 1.172 |
| Confederacion Colombiana de Algodon | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Ethiopia | 0.019 | 0.076 | 0.000 |
| IKP Trust | 0.036 | 0.202 | 0.250 |
| Mercy Corps | 0.029 | 0.096 | 0.092 |
| Others | 0.158 | 0.257 | 0.204 |
| OXFAM | 0.007 | 0.045 | 0.003 |
| Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey | 0.038 | 0.047 | 0.066 |
| Wageningen University | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Unres+Other Sources | Unres+Other Sources | 1.461 | 2.214 | 2.075 |
|
Allocation of Project Costs to CGIAR Priorities, 2009-2013 in $millions
| Project |
Actual 2009 |
Estimated 2010 |
Proposal 2011 |
Plan 1 2012 |
Plan 2 2013 |
| Priorities |
| Theme 9: Science and Technology |
Project Total | 6.841 | 7.879 | 7.706 | 8.015 | 8.336 |
| 1A | 0.918 | 1.058 | 1.034 | 1.077 | 1.120 |
| 1B | 0.019 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| 1C | 0.019 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| 2C | 0.451 | 0.520 | 0.509 | 0.529 | 0.550 |
| 2D | 0.575 | 0.662 | 0.647 | 0.673 | 0.700 |
| 3A | 0.441 | 0.507 | 0.496 | 0.516 | 0.537 |
| 3B | 0.038 | 0.044 | 0.043 | 0.045 | 0.047 |
| 4D | 0.616 | 0.709 | 0.694 | 0.721 | 0.750 |
| 5A | 1.683 | 1.938 | 1.896 | 1.973 | 2.052 |
| 5C | 0.757 | 0.872 | 0.853 | 0.887 | 0.923 |
| 5D | 0.365 | 0.420 | 0.411 | 0.427 | 0.444 |
| Development Activities | 0.480 | 0.553 | 0.540 | 0.562 | 0.584 |
| Stand-alone Training | 0.479 | 0.552 | 0.539 | 0.561 | 0.583 |
|
Project investment by developing Region, 2009-2013 in $millions
| Project |
Target Regions |
Actual 2009 |
Estimated 2010 |
Proposal 2011 |
Plan 1 2012 |
Plan 2 2013 |
Project Total | 6.841 | 7.879 | 7.706 | 8.015 | 8.336 |
| Theme 9: Science and Technology | Asia | 1.043 | 1.528 | 1.865 | 1.940 | 2.018 |
| CWANA | 0.000 | 0.188 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| LAC | 0.401 | 0.675 | 0.340 | 0.354 | 0.368 |
| SSA | 5.397 | 5.488 | 5.501 | 5.721 | 5.950 |
|
|
|