Despite the pressing need for biosafety regulations, Zambia still does not have any framework in place. Not only have there been problems in building and implementing a national biosafety regulatory structure, Zambian scientists themselves have been slow to sensitize the authorities to the need for legislation. The situation is not helped by the general perception that "there is no serious biotechnology in Zambia" and the lukewarm support for efforts to develop a national biosafety framework by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) whose portfolio covers the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are bound to find their way into Zambia. Our country is land-locked and bordered by eight other nation states. If any of these were to generate or import genetically modified (GM) crops they would eventually find their way into Zambia either as food, seed or food aid. Even if stringent controls could be imposed it would be impossible to eliminate informal trade (smuggling) along our long land border. At present foodstuffs, propagation materials and seeds move freely from one country to the next in informal cross-border trading and there is no reason to believe that GMOs would be treated any differently. Meanwhile South Africa, which is already growing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton and Bt maize, is committed to developing its agricultural biotechnology research capacity and looks to its northern partners in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) for markets.

In Zambia, we have yet to realize a mature regulatory framework capable of ensuring the safe development, application and commercialization of biotechnology. Once the Zambian government has adapted our draft National Biotechnology and Biosafety policy proposal, supporting legislation and agencies to enforce its provisions will have to be developed. This complex process is being completed in an environment where there is a lack of political will to provide adequate funds for science and technology. Not only that, but there is economic crisis, an acute lack of specialist manpower and a highly differentiated agricultural sector of approximately 1.5 million farming families scattered over nearly 739,600 square kilometres of African savannah. If we are to make progress in safely introducing and developing this new technology an "environment of acceptance"characterized by a well-informed civil society and a competent and objective media will have to be developed.

Drafting the Zambian National Biosafety Regulatory Framework (NBRF) brought home to me how few technological, legal and financial resources a country like Zambia has when compared to the industrialized North, when it comes to drafting and negotiating legislation. My experience in coordinating and compiling Zambia's biosafety regulations was similar to those of many of my colleagues in other African countries. I too was a one person delegation in all the negotiations that lead up to the signing of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. However, we African delegates overcame this hurdle by negotiating as a team and, as the The African Group, were able to create a formidable front of scientists, lawyers and diplomants.

My first introduction to the biosafety issue was at the African Regional Conference for International Cooperation on Safety in Biotechnology in Harare, Zimbabwe in 1993. I went to this conference in an individual capacity and came back as Zambia's national biosafety focal point. The heavy burden of initiating the process of developing a draft national biotechnology and biosafety policy had been laid squarely on my shoulders although I had never developed or participated in the development of any national policy of any kind.

I felt hampered by my lack of knowledge. However, my understanding of the complexities of biotechnology and biosafety were considerably increased when I was nominated to represent Zambia during the review of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Draft International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology and Related Capacity Building Requirements. This was an experience that can only be compared to jumping into the deep end of a swimming pool on your first lesson.

My first confrontation with the details of biosafety, its science as well as its politics, came at the Worldwide Consultation on Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology and Related Capacity Building Requirements in 1995. This experience proved very useful during the negotiation of the Cartagena Protocol at a meeting of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biosafety in Åarhus, Denmark in 1996.

At the Åarhus meeting, the African Group gave Ethiopia the task of developing a draft African Biosafety Protocol. Like a knight in shining armour, Ethiopia rose to the occasion by coming up with a comprehensive draft that was reviewed and adopted by African negotiators and later submitted as the African position.

Zambia endorsed the precautionary principle by assenting to both the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the CBD. In drafting its NBRF, Zambia followed the criteria adopted by the African Group of a strong, precautionary, broad-based legislation that conserves and protects biodiversity, the environment, human and animal health, and society. We argue that, as yet, the long-term impacts of GMOs and products derived from them are not fully understood and, therefore, safety and caution should take precedence over other interests including international trade agreements. We have also tried to ensure that our draft regulations and policy suggestions are in line with the biosafety regimes of other countries in the region.

How agricultural biotechnology will develop in our country not only depends on our scientific and technological capacity and infrastructure but also on how far Zambians feel it is being introduced in a safe and acceptable way. Appropriate and consistently implemented biosafety regulations are essential to public trust. As concerns about the safety of biotechnology and its products continue to be raised worldwide, it becomes increasingly important that the Zambian public feel confident in the effectiveness of their national biosafety regulations.

National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, PO Box 310158, Chelston, 15302, Lusaka, Zambia.
Phone (+260) 1 282 488; Fax (+260) 1 226 200; E-mail sanyanda@hotmail.com