Most of the genetically modified crops are now in various stages of research, but there is no clear path on how they will move from their current stage of study. The country has a record of four Genetically Modified (GM) crops– Bt maize, Bt cotton, Transgenic Cassava, Transgenic Sweet Potatoes - and one Recombinant Rinderpest Vaccine whose study are in various stages.
Scientists carrying confined field trials on crops such as maize and cotton do not know how they will proceed to the next stage of field release trials as there is no legal framework on the same.
Sources in government circles also say they are not sure what to do for now, but to wait for that moment to come before they can decide on the next course of action.
Confined field trials on maize, also known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) maize, are going on in Kiboko, Makueni, while that on Bt Cotton are taking place in Mwea.
The second harvest of the GMO maize, which is supposed to be resistant to the stem borers was done two weeks ago, while Bt cotton, with a gene designed to make it resistant to the bollworm, is flowering.
The harvested maize has been kept to be used again in the breeding process, before it is finally destroyed. These technologies are expected to help a farmer cut-down significantly on the cost of production. Multinational companies that have developed varieties that can work for the country now say they too are finding it difficult to transfer the technology here as there is no clear cut legal framework how they should engage.
“Without existence of a Biosafety Act, this technology will remain a research project and it will not reach farmers because there will be no legal framework provided for its commercialization,” says Kinyua M’Mbijjewe of Monsanto, a US based organization.
Dr Stephen Mugo, a plant breeder at International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) says although there are rules and regulations on the development and testing of GMO products in the country, they cannot support certain trials that are necessary for moving the technology to the farmers.
M’Mbijjewe and other advocates of biotechnology say there needs to be a clear legal framework on how biotechnology will be handled for investors working in the field to be interested in testing their products in the country.
These concerns come after President Mwai Kibaki gave thumbs up to the technology when he in 2004 officially opened Kenya Agricultural Research Institute’s Biosafety Green House complex, where trials on GM crops are carried out before scientists move into the field trials.
Speaking during the function, the president was however fast to add that the country would apply modern biotechnology in line with existing biosafety frameworks, national statutes and international obligations.
But since then, no law or policy framework has been put in place to guide how research in the area will be conducted, despite Kenya being rated as one of the leading biotech countries in Africa.
A Biosafety Bill is now waiting to be brought to parliament for debate and enactment into law.
Operating in such scenario, the government has been responding with guidelines at every stage of research on need based basis, especially when scientists present it with requests to undertake further trials on such organisms.
In most cases, when such requests are made, the National Biosafety Committee (NBC), which directs research in this area, has been forced to borrow from guidelines being used in countries such as South Africa and Canada.
Scientists are now expressing their fears that the government is moving at a snails pace in putting in place a policy and a law to guide on how research in this area is done.
So far, the research which is going on at the moment is guided by the Science and Technology Act Cap 250, which does not sufficiently cater for transgenic crops as it was enacted before GMOs became a global issue.
The establishment is said to be very cautious about the issue, especially on matters concerning the growing and commercialization of GMO crops within Kenya.
Sources at the NBC said the government does not want to rush the matter and then burn its fingers or hurt other stakeholders.
“We are moving at the right pace because these are both sensitive and emotive issues which have to be addressed in a very cautious manner,” said a source at the NBC.
Already, a Biosafety Bill and regulations on how it will be implemented have been developed. Horizon has also learnt that manuals for use by regulatory agents dealing with GMOs products and awareness materials targeting the public, have been finalised.
The NBC officials say a biosafety policy is likely to be adopted by the cabinet by June 2006, removing some of the uncertainties on to carry research on GM crops.
While this is going on, the government is finding itself in a tricky position as America and some European countries have vested interests in the way the proposed Biosafety law and the regulations should look like.
The two are said to be, behind the scenes, trying to influence the government to either put or remove certain things in the proposed Biosafety policy and law in order to accommodate their interests.
America, which is the leading producer of GMO products in the world, has in the past expressed disquiet with certain requirements such as labeling of products to indicate that they are genetically modified.
On the other hand, European Union, which is currently carrying out 11,000 studies on GMOs, is for such restrictions being put in place.
America and Canadian governments argue that such restrictions go against the principles of trade espoused by World Trade Organisation.
The organization’s rules, in a departure from the Cartegena Protocol’s precautionary principle, require scientific justification for restrictions on imported commodities. It proposes that countries use the least trade restrictive options.
Created in 2000 and officially functional in 2003, the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally-binding agreement that is designed to address potential risks posed by GMOs.
Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Uruguay are other countries which by end of last year, had refused to ratify the protocol.
At the moment, the fear created among GMO crops is making it very difficult for some countries to allow their importation, affecting the exports of countries dealing in these crops.
Many developing countries, particularly in Africa, have already expressed fears that they may not have the capacity and resources to implement the Cartegena Protocol when they have other competing and pressing needs such as health, education, and shelter.
Scientists trained in biochemistry, molecular genetics, and plant breeding are some of those needed to assess and manage the risk of GMOs to human beings and biodiversity.
In Kenya, the government is being helped by the Global Environmental Facility a component of the United Nations Environment Programme to operationalise the protocol.
The government is however now finding itself torn between other donors who are for and against certain requirements of the Protocol. To avoid hurting its development partners, the country has adopted not put much details in the Biosafety Bill.
Biotechnology experts say this leaves the government with the option of placing such information in the regulations, which can be easily amended.
An official at the NBC says some of the issues being raised by US and Europe are currently a sticking point in international debate, and the country cannot move to make a decision and put them in law before a global consensus on the same.
These issues revolve around two provisions of the Cartgena Protocol, article 18 which deals with handling, transport, packaging and identification of GMO products, and article 27, which talks about liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of GMOs.
Locally, many vested interests in GMO products, some using these articles to explain their positions, are said to delay the enactment of the Biosafety Bill.
Stakeholders range from the ministries of agriculture, livestock, health, environment, trade and industry, several government agencies to the civil society and donors.
Scientists warns that if the issue is not handled well, attempts to accommodate the numerious vested interests may result in the government coming up with a voluminous Biosafety Law that will be difficult to implement.
Matters are not also good on other fronts as MPs have already taken hard stands on the issues.
At the moment, one of the MPs has presented a motion in parliament that seeks to ban the importation of any GMO products into the country. This motion comes even before the Bill is presented in parliament.
Daggers are now drawn with some biotechnology experts challenging the MPs to base their debate on scientific and legal evidence and not rumours and mere talk.
Last year, Florence Wambugu, a genetic engineer and the CEO of Africa Harvest, a US-based foundation with offices in Kenya and South Africa, warned MPs not to equate the Biosafety Bill to GM crops.
Conscious of this, the NBC has been reaching out to the MPs to expose them to what the technology is all about and what it portents for Kenya. At one point, over 100 MPs were taken through the science behind GMO products by scientists.
The most recent engagement happened less than two weeks when a group of MPs were taken see Bt cotton being grown under confined field trials.