towards a regional approach to biotechnology and biosafety ......biosafety framework by enacting...

Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN)

Discussion Paper�

Towards a Regional Approach to Biotechnology and Biosafety Policies for Southern African Countries

Phase I: Situation Analysis and Stakeholder Views – Mauritius

By:

Harris Neeliah National Resource Person

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ""�

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� """�

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank all the stakeholders for their time and cooperation in participating in this survey, and my research assistant, Ms Subashini Vytelingum. The work reported in this publication was made possible through support provided by the Regional Center for Southern Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development, under the terms of its Agreement with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) under its Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development, IFPRI or FANRPAN.

�

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ")�

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iii

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ ix

Abstract..................................................................................................................................x

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Terms of reference .................................................................................................1 1.2 Structure of the report.............................................................................................1

2. Methodology....................................................................................................................2 2.1 Literature review.....................................................................................................2 2.2 Secondary data collection.......................................................................................2 2.3 Stakeholder analysis ..............................................................................................2 2.4 Situational analysis pertaining to biosafety .............................................................3 2.5 Data analysis..........................................................................................................3

3. Frameworks and strategies pertaining to genetic modification and biosafety ...................4 3.1 Institutional Biosafety Committee............................................................................4 3.2 United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Fund

(UNEP/GEF)...........................................................................................................4 3.3 Convention on Biological Diversity..........................................................................4

3.3.1 Biosafety clearing house .............................................................................4 3.4 Cartagena Protocol.................................................................................................4

3.4.1 The precautionary principle .........................................................................5 3.4.2 The biosafety clearing house ......................................................................5 3.4.3 The national focal point ...............................................................................5

3.5 Subregional advisory committee on biotechnology and biosafety ...........................5

4. Legislation .......................................................................................................................6 4.1 The Genetically Modified Organisms Act ................................................................6

4.1.1 National Biosafety Committee .....................................................................6 4.1.2 GMO permit ................................................................................................7 4.1.3 Registration.................................................................................................7 4.1.4 Enforcement................................................................................................7 4.1.5 Labelling .....................................................................................................7 4.1.6 Penalties .....................................................................................................7

5. Results and discussion....................................................................................................8 5.1 Role of agriculture in the economy .........................................................................8

5.1.1 Agricultural production ................................................................................8 5.1.2 Biotechnology in agricultural production ....................................................10

5.2 Agricultural and food imports ................................................................................10 5.3 Agricultural exports...............................................................................................12 5.4 Food security issues.............................................................................................12

5.4.1 Resources for importation .........................................................................12 5.4.2 Consumer price index ...............................................................................13 5.4.3 Food aid....................................................................................................13 5.4.4 Sources of food aid ...................................................................................14

5.5 Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................14 5.5.1 Opinion of the impact of genetically modified crops...................................14 5.5.2 Knowledge of the technology ....................................................................15 5.5.3 Concerns about genetic modification ........................................................16 5.5.4 Public perception and willingness to pay ...................................................18 5.5.5 Local genetic modification and production.................................................19 5.5.6 Trade in genetically modified crops ...........................................................20 5.5.7 International agreements...........................................................................21

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� )�

5.5.8 Impediment to trade ..................................................................................22 5.5.9 Biosafety framework..................................................................................22 5.5.10 GM standards and testing facilities............................................................24 5.5.11 Intellectual property rights .........................................................................25 5.5.12 Food aid and food security ........................................................................25 5.5.13 Harmonized regional biosafety systems....................................................26

5.6 Situational analysis...............................................................................................27 5.6.1 National biotechnology strategy ................................................................27 5.6.2 National regulatory structure .....................................................................27 5.6.3 Dealing with contingencies........................................................................28 5.6.4 Information system to keep stakeholders informed....................................28

6. Recommendations.........................................................................................................29 6.1 Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................29 6.2 Situational analysis...............................................................................................29

6.2.1 Legislative needs ......................................................................................29 6.2.2 Institutional and policy needs ....................................................................29 6.2.3 Capacity needs .........................................................................................29 6.2.4 Infrastructural needs .................................................................................29 6.2.5 Information needs .....................................................................................30 6.2.6 Regional approach....................................................................................30

7. Conclusions...................................................................................................................31

8. References....................................................................................................................32

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................34

Appendix 1: Stakeholders.....................................................................................................35 1. Agricultural Research and Extension Unit.............................................................35 2. Association des Producteurs et Exportateurs des Produits Horticole à

Maurice ................................................................................................................36 3. Comptoir des Epices, Ltée....................................................................................37 4. Food Agricultural Research Council .....................................................................38 5. Institute for Consumers’ Protection.......................................................................39 6. Ireland Blyth Limited – Agrochemicals..................................................................40 7. Le Matinal Newspaper..........................................................................................41 8. Mauritius Chamber of Agriculture .........................................................................42 9. Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry.....................................................43 10. Mauritius Research Council..................................................................................44 11. Mauritius Standards Bureau .................................................................................45 12. Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute .........................................................46 13. Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute .........................................................47 14. Mauritius Vegetable Planters' Association ............................................................48 15. Meaders Feeds Limited ........................................................................................49 16. Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries – Agricultural Services ............................50 17. Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries – Agricultural Services ............................51 18. Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries – Agricultural Services ............................52 19. Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries – Division of Horticulture .........................53 20. Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries – Plant Pathology Department.................54 21. Ministry of Education and Human Resources .......................................................55 22. Ministry of Health and Quality of Life ....................................................................56 23. Ministry of Women's Rights, Child Development, Family Welfare &

Consumer Protection............................................................................................57 24. Rajiv Gandhi Science Centre................................................................................58 25. Roger Faydherbe and Co. Ltd ..............................................................................59 26. University of Mauritius ..........................................................................................60

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� )"�

27. University of Mauritius ..........................................................................................61 28. University of Mauritius – Faculty of Agriculture .....................................................62 29. University of Mauritius – Faculty of Agriculture .....................................................63 30. University of Mauritius – Faculty of Science .........................................................64 31. University of Mauritius – Faculty of Science .........................................................65 32. University of Mauritius – Faculty of Social Studies and Humanities ......................66 33. United Nations Development Programme.............................................................67

Appendix 2: Timeline for Biosafety Development in Mauritius...............................................68

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� )""�

List of Tables Page

Table 1: Stakeholder opinions of genetically modified crops ............................................14 Table 2: Why are stakeholders pro genetically modified crops?.......................................15 Table 3: Why are stakeholders anti genetically modified crops? ......................................15 Table 4: Ranking of possible benefits related to genetically modified crops .....................15 Table 5: What are respondents’ concerns about genetic modification?............................17 Table 6: How could respondents’ concerns be addressed? .............................................17 Table 7: What are the risks if genetically modified crops are grown locally?.....................17 Table 8: What crops have been genetically modified locally?...........................................19 Table 9: What crops have been approved for trial locally? ...............................................19 Table 10: Are there future plans to produce genetically modified crops commercially? ......20 Table 11: What is the area under genetically modified crops? ...........................................20 Table 12: Who are the main exporters of genetically modified crops and food? .................20 Table 13: What genetically modified crops enter Mauritius?...............................................21 Table 14: What international agreements on trade and biotechnology does Mauritius

have? .................................................................................................................22 Table 15: What are the market barriers to trade in certain commodities?...........................22 Table 16: What has Mauritius done to comply with the Cartagena Protocol? .....................23 Table 17: Does Mauritius have a national biotechnology strategy and policy? ...................24 Table 18: Does Mauritius have a biosafety law and have guidelines and regulations

been formulated? ...............................................................................................24 Table 19: What intellectual property acts are being imposed in Mauritius? ........................25 Table 20: What is the country’s position on genetically modified food aid? ........................26

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� )"""�

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Share of agriculture in GDP at basic prices 1993–2003 .......................................8 Figure 2: Sugar cane production 1993–2003.......................................................................9 Figure 3: Food crop production 1993–2003.........................................................................9 Figure 4: Production of tomatoes, maize and potatoes 1993–2003 .....................................9 Figure 5: Agricultural, food and total imports 1993–2003 ..................................................10 Figure 6: Imports of staples and cereals 1993–2003.........................................................11 Figure 7: Potato and onion imports 1993–2003.................................................................11 Figure 8: Milk and other dairy imports 1993–2003.............................................................11 Figure 9: Sugar exports 1993–2003 ..................................................................................12 Figure 10: Agricultural exports 1993–2003..........................................................................12 Figure 11: Evolution of the consumer price index 1993–2003 (base year = 1990)...............13 Figure 12: Wheat and total food aid 1970–1995..................................................................13 Figure 13: Food aid other than wheat 1970–1995 ...............................................................14 Figure 14: Respondents’ knowledge and consumers’ awareness of genetic

modification........................................................................................................16 Figure 15: Public perception of genetically modified crops. .................................................18 Figure 16: Would you buy genetically modified food?..........................................................18 Figure 17: Knowledge of frameworks and policy arrangements. .........................................23 Figure 18: Does Mauritius have genetic modification standards for non-GM foods? ...........24 Figure 19: Has Mauritius received genetically modified food aid? .......................................26

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� "*�

��

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CP Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

CPU Consumer Protection Unit

FANRPAN Food and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FARC Food and Agricultural Research Council

GDP gross domestic product

GEF Global Environment Fund

GM genetic modification/genetically modified

GMO genetically modified organism

IPR intellectual property right

LMO living genetically modified organism

MoAFTNR Ministry of Agriculture, Food Technology and Natural Resources (now the Ministry of AgroIndustry and Fisheries)

MSB Mauritius Standards Bureau

MSIRI Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute

NBC National Biosafety Committee

NFP national focal point

SADC Southern African Development Community

SPS sanitary and phytosanitary

T tonne

TBT technical barrier to trade

TRIPs trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UPOV International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants

WTO World Trade Organization

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� *�

��

This analysis of the biotechnology situation in Mauritius and the views of stakeholders there is part of a bigger project which aims to document a balanced review of the technical information needed to guide SADC countries’ biosafety policy choices. The report presents the results from a simple analysis of secondary data and the findings of a stakeholder analysis and a biosafety situational analysis.

The situational analysis shows that Mauritius has made a first step towards setting up a biosafety framework by enacting legislation re genetically modified organisms and instituting a National Biosafety Committee. But the Genetically Modified Organisms Act must be fully instituted and the remaining components of the regulatory system must be put in place. These limitations should be addressed locally and regionally to ensure that Mauritius can benefit fully from genetically modified crops and foods.

From the stakeholder analysis, it is highly probable that Mauritius is importing genetically modified products, either as inputs or as foods. The sample for the survey comprised 34 stakeholders with an interest in agriculture, trade, biotechnology, genetic modification and biosafety. The key findings are that stakeholders who are members of the National Biosafety Committee are well informed about the issues surrounding genetic modification. Others are informed about the issues falling under their area of expertise, but still others are relatively uninformed.

The report identifies areas of weakness and makes some preliminary recommendations.

��

�� !��"�# ��

$% �&��'()��'&�The extent to which modern biotechnology can contribute to agricultural development and sustainability is subject to intense scrutiny, debate and controversy. This is even more palpable in Africa, where it is hypothesized that modern agribiotechnology could provide solutions to many agriculture-related constraints. African countries therefore face a serious dilemma: whether to accept such technologies or not; and, if they do, how to maximize the associated benefits and minimize the risks. In order to take an informed decision, African governments need to be aware of the issues surrounding agribiotechnology, specifically those related to biosafety policies. This need for awareness, information and regulatory structures is also felt by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). It resulted in the involvement of the Food and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), with a general aim of striving towards a regional approach to biotechnology policy in southern Africa. FANRPAN specifically wants to assess whether Mauritius has biosafety structures in place that will enable the country to fully benefit from the rewards that biotechnology and, more specifically, genetic engineering can potentially bring to agriculture, trade and food security.

$%$ ��*�� To achieve the above-mentioned objective, a stakeholder analysis and a biosafety situational analysis were conducted.

$%+ �� Section 2 highlights the specific aims of the study and shows what methodology was used to fulfil each objective. Section 3 describes the frameworks pertaining to living genetically modified organisms (LMOs), biotechnology and biosafety, and which of these frameworks have been signed and ratified by Mauritius. Section 4 depicts legislation with regard to genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Mauritius and its main provisions. Section 5 analyses the results of secondary data collection and the findings of the stakeholder and biosafety situational analyses. The main findings and recommendations are presented in Section 6, and the working paper is concluded in Section 7.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +�

+% # ,�-'('.'/0��The objectives of the study are: 1. to collect data and information on agriculture, biotechnology, genetically modified (GM)

crops, trade, food security and biosafety regulation and legislation in Mauritius; 2. to appraise stakeholders’ knowledge of agriculture, biotechnology, GM crops, trade, food

security and biosafety regulation and legislation in Mauritius; 3. to assess the biosafety system in place locally, especially with respect to importing GM

food and receiving GM food aid; 4. to document a balanced review (based on objectives 1 & 2) of the technical information

needed to inform SADC’s regional biosafety policy choices responsibly.

+%$ .��Relevant literature was reviewed:

• to provide a background to the study;

• to map out an ideal biosafety structure and subsequently provide a basis against which the existing Mauritian biosafety framework can be compared and appraised.

+%+ �� Agricultural production and trade statistics were collected.

+%1 ��Groups of people and institutions with a right, mandate and/or interest in biotechnology locally were interviewed and asked to complete a questionnaire. In personal interviews, respondents were asked about agribiotechnology, genetic modification (GM), agricultural production and trade, biosafety systems and food security. The aim was to assess their knowledge of the above-mentioned issues, using open- and closed-ended questions. Moreover, in-depth interviews were carried out with selected survey participants because of their expert knowledge in a particular subject.

The key informants1 involved in this phase of the study included representatives from:

• academia,

• regulatory bodies,

• research and development organizations,

• professional organizations,

• civil society and consumer organizations,

• laboratories and standard-setting organizations,

• interested parties,

• input suppliers and private sector, and

• others

1 Stakeholders, their coordinates and the institutions they represent, are listed in Appendix 1.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,�

+%2 ��A situation analysis was conducted:

• to map the biosafety system with respect to production and import of GM crops;

• to assess the existing biosafety system by comparing it with a model biosafety system;

• to identify the measures and constraints of the present system; and

• to prioritise actions.

+%3 (��The questionnaires were statistically analysed using SPSS 10.0. The mean response was calculated for each response and variables of interest were cross-tabulated.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -�

1% 4��# ,5 '�6��&(��,/�,�+��,��&�&/��'�/,&,��# '(�4��'&��&(��'��4,�0�

1%$ ��**��The Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI) has been a key player in the development of a biosafety framework in Mauritius. In 1993, it initiated work on the development of transgenic sugar cane and, in 1996, it constituted an Institutional Biosafety Committee to review all projects regarding GM technology.

1%+ )�� &�� ,��*�� **�7/�� ,��*�� 4��8)&,�7/,49�

The United Nations Environment Programme, with funding from the Global Environment Fund, has overseen a capacity-building project to help developing countries assess the potential risks and rewards of genetically engineered crops. The $38.4m scheme aimed at helping up to 100 countries to develop the scientific and legal skills to assess LMO imports. Under this programme, national biosafety guidelines for the safe development and introduction of GMOs into Mauritius were prepared by the MSIRI (1999). These guidelines provide a framework for practices and procedures for the safe use of biotechnology in Mauritius so as to protect the country from any adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment. They cover trials, release, import, export and transport of GMOs.

1%1 �� (��The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was finalised in Nairobi in May 1992 and opened for signature at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992. It entered into force on 29 December 1993. Today, the Convention is the main international instrument for addressing biodiversity issues. It provides a comprehensive and holistic approach to the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of natural resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits deriving from the use of genetic resources. One of the issues addressed by the Convention is biosafety.

1%1%$ ��

A clearing house is an agency that brings together seekers for and providers of goods, services or information, thus matching demand with supply. After the CBD, it was understood that scientific knowledge and technological know-how would have a vital role to play in biosafety, and it was also realised that expertise in managing information and technology varies enormously from country to country. For this reason, the CBD established a clearing house mechanism to ensure that all governments have access to the information and technologies they need for their work on biodiversity, by providing tools for decision-making, training and capacity-building, research, funding, technology transfer, and the repatriation of information.

1%2 �� At its second meeting, in November 1995, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention established an Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety to develop a draft protocol on biosafety, focusing specifically on transboundary movement of LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use

2 A time line showing the main biosafety developments is given in Appendix 2

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .�

of biological diversity. The protocol also takes into account risks to human health, especially from transboundary movements. After several years of negotiations, the protocol, known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CP), was finalized and adopted in Montreal on 29 January 2000 at an extraordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CBD, 2000).

The conclusion of the biosafety protocol has been hailed as a significant step forward, in that it provides an international regulatory framework to reconcile the respective needs of trade and environmental protection with regard to a rapidly growing biotechnology industry. The CP thus creates an enabling environment for the environmentally sound application of biotechnology, making it possible to derive maximum benefit from the potential that biotechnology has to offer, while minimising the possible risks to the environment and to human health. Mauritius ratified the CP in April 2002.

1%2%$ ��

The CP entered into force on 11 September 2003. It directly refers to the precautionary principle (that parties should not refrain from taking measures to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment merely due to lack of scientific certainty or lack of information) and establishes a so-called ‘advance informed agreement’ procedure for the import of LMOs. This procedure permits signatories of the protocol to acquire and exchange information on LMOs through a biosafety clearing house.

1%2%+ ��

The Biosafety Clearing House was created to support the CP by facilitating the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information and experience relating to LMOs (CBD, 2000).

The secretariat of the CBD is promoting the clearing house and its goals through workshops addressing the scientific and technical information needs of developing countries. These workshops give priority to issues identified by the countries themselves, such as assessing national capacity for implementing the CBD, improving access to new information technologies and expertise, and strengthening public education and awareness.

1%2%1 ��

Under Article 19 of the CP, each Party must designate one national focal point (NFP) to be responsible on its behalf for liaison with the Secretariat. All designated NFPs are registered with the Biosafety Clearing House. The Ministry of AgroIndustry and Fisheries is the NFP for Mauritius.

1%3 �� **�� This advisory committee was set up by SADC’s Council of Ministers of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources because some SADC countries did not accept GM food aid, mostly due to external pressure, which highlighted the need for a biosafety system. The aim was to develop guidelines to safeguard member states against the potential risks of GMOs in the areas of trade, food safety, contamination of genetic resources, ethics and consumer concerns.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /�

2% .,/��.��'&�

2%$ ��/�� # ��'��*�� The Genetically Modified Organisms Act of 2004 was introduced to fill a legal void. There had been an increase in the quantity of GM food products in the global food chain and Mauritius, being a net food importer, is a link in that chain. GM foods were already represented on the local market. A number of foods consumed daily are made from enzymes derived from GMOs, like bread, cheese, meat, processed foods, fruit juice, beer and wine. There were numerous concerns regarding GMOs and a legal framework was required to set appropriate controls to regulate the entry of GM foods and other products derived from GMOs. The country also lacked a regulatory framework for field-testing and producing GM crops. Therefore it was appropriate for Mauritius to set up legal and regulatory capacities to provide adequate protection and confidence to all stakeholders.

The GMO Act (2004) has 25 clauses providing for measures to regulate the responsible planning, development, production, use, marketing and application of permits pertaining to GMOs in Mauritius, and for the necessary precautionary steps to control, inter alia, entry into the country, marketing, disposal and all other dealings with GMOs and products derived therefrom. It also sees to it that GMOs are not harmful to human and animal health and to the environment; for instance, by providing for the labelling of foods.

The Act is part of the process of implementing the provisions made under the CP on biosafety as a precautionary approach towards all dealings with GMOs. It has been framed in order to address the different articles of the protocol, for instance, risk assessment as per Article 15, rigorous handling, transport, packaging and identification of GMOs as per Article 18, public awareness and participation as per Article 23, review of decisions re a GMO permit as per Article 12.

Furthermore, at the regional level, the SADC emphasised the need for legislation on GMOs. Member states were urged to enact the necessary legislation in order to harmonize biosafety legislation and regulations within SADC by 2004. A fully implementable GMO Act would also help in regulating trade of GM products within SADC. This regional pressure contributed to the setting up of the legislation.

2%$%$ &��**��

As one of the provisos of the CP, Clause 4 of the GMO Act proposes the setting up of a National Biosafety Committee (NBC). Clauses 5 to 6 of the act deal with the NBC, its composition and functions. The NBC is responsible for coordinating and monitoring the overall implementation of the act.

Committee members will be experts in the field of biotechnology and relevant representatives of various authorities concerned with research and development, as well as with the trade, health and environment sectors. Should the need arise, external expertise can be sought to assist the NBC in deliberation. The consumers’ association has also been included to promote public consultation and involvement in decision-making. This will ensure that the ethical and social implications of developments in biotechnology, including issues of food safety, public health and environmental protection, are taken into consideration.

The main function of the NBC is to examine, on the basis of scientific principles, all permit applications received by the Ministry concerning activities dealing with GMOs, including application, development, exportation, importation, marketing, production, release, research, sale, transit and use.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 0�

2%$%+ /# '��*��

A GMO permit is required to develop, export or import, market, produce, release into the environment, transit and use GMOs. Clauses 7 to 9 deal with the GMO permit and its application procedures.

The legislation provides for the applications to be made on prescribed forms within a well-defined time frame, and also establishes concrete methodologies for risk assessments to be effected on a case-to-case basis. The NBC can then formulate its recommendations to the Permanent Secretary to decide whether a GMO permit can be issued for any given activity.

Clause 9 provides for the Permanent Secretary to revoke or suspend any issued GMO permit in cases where there are adverse impacts on human and animal health, as well as damages to the environment and its biodiversity. Clause 16 of the act stipulates that any person who feels aggrieved by a decision taken by the Permanent Secretary may, within 21 days of communication, appeal against the decision to the appeal board to be appointed by the Minister.

2%$%1 ��

Clause 18 provides for all registration facilities dealing with GMOs.

2%$%2 ,�� *��

The legislation demands the maintenance of an up-to-date register of all facilities where activities with GMOs are carried out, along with other relevant records for regular inspection purposes to ensure strict compliance with conditions attached to the GMO permit. Clause 20 of the legislation also establishes clear-cut procedures in case of unanticipated accidents involving GMOs. This comprises emergency notification of an accident and its causes and other relevant information that would assist in assessing the impact of the accident, with a view to finding the right strategy to minimise damage, through the advice of a special committee comprising relevant experts.

2%$%3 .��

Clause 21 emphasises that every GMO permit holder shall ensure that any GMO is clearly identified and labelled, specifying the relevant trait and characteristics of the product.

2%$%: ��

Clause 22 provides for penalties for offences and non-compliance to the provisions contained in the act.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 1�

3% �,�).��&(�(��)��'&�This section is divided into six subsections. The first reviews the role of agriculture in the Mauritian economy, the second looks at agricultural and food imports. Subsection 5.3 shows the trends of the main agricultural exports and Subsection 5.4 discusses food security issues. Subsections 5.5 and 5.6 look at the findings of the stakeholder and situational analyses.

3%$ �� *��The economic development of Mauritius during the last thirty years or so has been a clear and consistent move from a classic colonial mono-crop economy towards a fairly well diversified economy. It is based on an export-oriented development of the manufacturing of textiles and apparel, and tourism, keeping the sugar industry as the backbone of the economy. The agricultural sector, once the most dominant, now accounts for only 7% of gross domestic product (GDP). Figure 1 shows the consistent downward trend since 1993.

Figure 1: Share of agriculture in GDP at basic prices 1993–2003

Source: Central Statistical Office (2004b).

The sharp decline in agriculture’s share of GDP has been compensated for by growth in other sectors. But the agricultural sector still plays a crucial role in the Mauritian economy owing to its socio-economic contribution.

3%$%$ ��

Two sets of policies have underpinned agricultural development locally, one supporting the sugar sector and one supporting the non-sugar sector. With the erosion of the preferential treatment under the Sugar Protocol, there have been changes in the two policies and these have been crystallised into a Sugar Sector Strategic Plan (Ministry of Agriculture, 2003b). It aims at increasing the competitiveness of the sugar industry, and promoting diversification within sugar cane but not necessarily outside of sugar cane. Figure 2 illustrates this point.

Since the mid 1980s, several policies, including the Non-sugar Strategic Sector Plan (Ministry of Agriculture, 2003a), have been devised and implemented to support non-sugar agriculture and these have partly contributed to increased food crop production locally (Figure 2). As a result, Mauritius is not a major food crop importer.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

%

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 2�

Figure 2: Sugar cane production 1993–2003


Figure 3: Food crop production 1993–2003


Figure 4: Production of tomatoes, maize and potatoes 1993–2003


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

'000

To

nne

s

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Tonn

es

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

18000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Tonn

es tomatomaizepotato

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 34�

However, as Figure 4 shows, although the production of tomatoes and potatoes has remained almost constant over the last ten years, production of maize has dropped since 1993. Several reasons can be put forward for this downward trend, but the main one is the difference between the cost of producing local maize and import prices. Local production is well below local needs, explaining the huge imports of maize.

3%$%+ ��

Ramkissoon (2002) historically reviewed the development process underpinning agricultural biotechnology research and development in Mauritius. Puchooa (2004) and Autrey and Dookun-Saumtally (2004) presented the status of biotechnology and GM locally and showed what biotechnologies were researched, where they were developed and what their uses were.

3%+ �� *��Mauritius is classified as a net food importer (WTO, 1995). Total agricultural and food imports have increased steadily over the last ten years (Figure 5). This can be accounted for by an increase in the number of tourists and a more diversified and sophisticated demand from Mauritians.

Figure 5: Agricultural, food and total imports 1993–2003


The major agricultural imports are staples and cereals. Figure 6 shows a steady, but significant increase in the import of maize because it is a primary input in poultry and livestock production and local production only accounts for a minor percentage of local requirements. The majority of maize imports come from Argentina. The increase in wheat imports can be accounted for by an increase in milling and re-export.

Potatoes and onions are imported to balance local production and demand, mainly from India, Australia and South Africa. These imports have seen a slight but steady increase over the last ten years (Figure 7).

Mauritius is also a major milk and dairy product importer (Figure 8). Such imports come from Australia, New Zealand and Europe. However, the government policy is to diversify the source of dairy products to obtain cheaper quality milk and increase access to dairy products. Consequently, it is planning to tap new markets, such as South Africa and India.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1993 1998 2003

Year

c.i.f

val

ue in

Rs

Mill

ion

Total agricultural andfood imports Total imports

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 33�

Figure 6: Imports of staples and cereals 1993–2003


Figure 7: Potato and onion imports 1993–2003


Figure 8: Milk and other dairy imports 1993–2003


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Tonn

es

Rice

Maize

Wheat flour

Wheat

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Tonn

es potatoonion

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Ton

nes

Milk and creamButter, ghee and curd

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 3+�

3%1 �� ;��The main agricultural export is sugar, which accounts for around 90% of total agricultural exports.

Figure 9: Sugar exports 1993–2003


The last five years have witnessed a dramatic increase in the exports of fish and fish preparations, as illustrated in Figure 10. The destinations of such exports are the EU and Reunion island.

Figure 10: Agricultural exports 1993–2003


3%2 4�� The country is classified as a net food importer (WTO, 1995) because sugar is not classified as a food item. The Mauritian food security strategy has therefore been based on generating sufficient foreign exchange to import food from the world market, funded by export revenues. For this reason, generating stable employment has been a major policy in ensuring food security at the household level.

3%2%$ �� *��

The country maintains foreign exchange reserves that would cover more than 36 weeks of imports (Bank of Mauritius, 2005). Similarly, food security at the household level has been equated with increased cash income, which entailed promoting employment in the formal and informal sectors.

0100200300400500

1993 1998 2003Year

Exp

ort v

alue

f.o.

b (U

S m

illio

n $)

Sugar

0

20

40

60

80

1993 1998 2003Year

Exp

ort v

alue

(US

m

illio

n $)

Molasses

Tea

Fish and fishpreparationsVegetables andfruitsCut flower andfoliageOther agric andfood products

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 3,�

3%2%+ ��*�� ;�

The consumer price index has seen a steady increase over the last ten years, meaning that the price of a fixed basket of goods has increased. For households to be food secure, revenue earned at the household level has to exceed the costs of goods and services. Therefore maintaining access to food through employment generation and stability is, and has to remain, a major concern of the Mauritian development strategy. The supply of affordable and healthy food is a facet of this strategy.

Figure 11: Evolution of the consumer price index 1993–2003 (base year = 1990)

Source: Central Statistical Office (2004a)

3%2%1 4��

Figure 12 shows the food aid received by Mauritius from 1970. It reached a peak of 64,000 tonnes in the early 1980s, when it was essential to ensure food security, but it was drastically reduced to almost nil in the mid-1990s. The main food aid received was cereals and rice (Figures 12 & 13).

Figure 12: Wheat and total food aid 1970–1995

Source: FAO Statistical database

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

_93-

01

_93-

06

_93-

11

_94-

04

_94-

09

_95-

02

_95-

07

_95-

12

_96-

05

_96-

10

_97-

03

_97-

08

_98-

01

_98-

06

_98-

11

_99-

04

_99-

09

_00-

02

_00-

07

_00-

12

_01-

05

_01-

10

_02-

03

_02-

08

_03-

01

_03-

06

_03-

11

_year_month

Ind

ex

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

1970 1980 1990

Year

Tonn

es Wheat andwheat flour

Other cereals

Total food aid

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 3-�

Figure 13: Food aid other than wheat 1970–1995

Source: FAO. Statistical database

3%2%2 ��

Food aid was received under the aegis of the World Food Programme from Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States.

3%3 ��This subsection presents an analysis of interviews with 34 stakeholders listed in Appendix 1. They were from academia (5), regulatory bodies (6), research and development organizations (5), professional organizations (4), civil society and consumer organizations (2), laboratory and standards organizations (2), interested parties (4), input suppliers and the private sector (4), plus two others.

The stakeholder analysis shows that the majority of stakeholders were aware of the issues falling under their jurisdiction but had a limited knowledge of other issues.

3%3%$ '��*�� *��

Surprisingly, when asked about what they thought when they heard the words ‘GM crops’, 35.3% of respondents could not form an opinion, 44.1% thought of them as having a positive impact, and the remaining 7 respondents thought GM crops would have a negative impact.

60% of respondents, who considered themselves as biological scientists, thought that GM crops would have a positive impact, but 57.1% of those forming part of the civil society and consumer organisations had a negative opinion of GM modification. The results tend to show that those who had an optimistic view of the impact of GM crops had a background in biological science, whereas those who considered themselves to be part of civil society and consumer organisations were more pessimistic.

Table 1: Stakeholder opinions of genetically modified crops

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1970 1980 1990Year

Tonn

esMilledpaddy rice

Dairyproducts

Non-cereals

Others

Opinion Frequency PercentagePro-GM 13 38.2Anti-GM 9 26.5Pro-GM with safeguards 6 17.6Mixed 3 8.8None 3 8.8Total 34 100.0

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 3.�

13 and 9 respondents were pro and anti GM respectively (Table 1). Six respondents were pro GM if the technology came with necessary safeguards. Three of them pointed out that these safeguards should be in the form of a rigid risk assessment.

Table 2: Why are stakeholders pro genetically modified crops?

Stakeholders who were anti GM claimed that their reasons for being anti were that GM products are unsafe and not good for the environment, and that the intellectual property rights (IPRs) for GM are in the hands of multinationals (Table 3).

Table 3: Why are stakeholders anti genetically modified crops?

Respondents were asked to rank the possible benefits of GM crops in order of importance and came up with the following (Table 4):

Table 4: Ranking of possible benefits related to genetically modified crops

The benefits listed by the stakeholders are those that usually accrue from genetic modification. However, not all benefits apply to all agribiotechnologies and can be simultaneously enjoyed by all stakeholders; they usually occur individually, depending on the trait that has been inserted or improved; in stacked-event instances, there can be more than one benefit per crop. Other proclaimed benefits are crops that are resistant to drought or to cold, or that have improved pest resistance, as well as improved resource management. Here it must be highlighted that, for every beneficial claim of agribiotechnology, anti-GM postulants find a counter argument that shows that agribiotechnology will not bring the benefit claimed, or that there are alternative agro-ecological production systems (Altieri & Rosset, 1999; McGloughlin, 1999).

3%3%+ 6��

Stakeholders tended to rate their own knowledge of the technology as good, but 90% of them claimed that consumers have poor awareness, even though no formal studies have

Reasons Frequency PercentageI know the science 4 30,8Aware of the benefits 7 53,8Others 2 15,4Total 13 100,0

Reasons Frequency PercentageUnsafe 4 44,4In the hands of multinationals 2 22,2Not good for the environment 3 33,3Total 9 99,9

Rank Possible benefits1 Increased yields2 Herbicide resistance3 Disease resistance4 Increased profits for farmers5 Cheaper foods for consumers6 Reduced costs of production7 Improved nutritional quality8 Improved product quality

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 3/�

been published on Mauritian consumers’ awareness and acceptance of GM foods. Nevertheless, based on the responses of stakeholders, it can be said that they are insufficiently informed about the existence and presence of GMOs in feed and food.

Figure 14: Respondents’ knowledge and consumers’ awareness of genetic modification

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Their knowledge Consumers' awareness

GoodPoor

Providing more factual information about GMOs could increase acceptance by consumers (Hoban, 1999). The Mauritian public should have prior information3 about the risks and benefits of consuming GMOs to enable them to make an informed choice to consume/use GMOs or not.

3%3%1 �� *��

The majority of respondents did not differentiate between past and current concerns, presented in Table 5. Only 10 of the 34 respondents were concerned about the potential health hazards associated with genetic modification. Lack of awareness was a concern for 11.8% of the respondents. One respondent was also concerned about the stance that countries importing from Mauritius could take, if the country were to produce and export GM products: The EU could use the precautionary principle and discriminate against any potential export of GM foods from Mauritius. Exporters to the EU should therefore assure themselves that such discrimination would not occur.

3 This is unlike the actual situation, where consumers could be consuming GMOs without knowing it.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 30�

Table 5: What are respondents’ concerns about genetic modification?

According to 17.6% of respondents, the concerns listed in Table 5 could be addressed by increasing the awareness of respondents on issues surrounding GM (Table 6). 17.6% believed that those concerns could be allayed by enforcing existing legislation and 8.9% believed they could be allayed by conducting more research on GM crops. 11.8% of respondents feared that their concerns were not being addressed, and 29.4% did not know how their concerns could be dispelled.

Table 6: How could respondents’ concerns be addressed?

55.8% of respondents feared that there could be cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops, resulting in a loss of biodiversity and economic impacts (Table 7).

Table 7: What are the risks if genetically modified crops are grown locally?

The stakeholders’ concerns about the risks of GM crops were global in nature and can be grouped into four main categories: food safety, environmental and socioeconomic risks and

Concerns Frequency PercentageHealth 10 29,4Environmental 4 11,8Legal framework 2 5,9Health & lack of awareness 2 5,9Infrastructural 1 2,9Lack of awareness 4 11,8Health & importing countries 1 2,9Legal, public acceptance & funding 1 2,9No concerns 3 8,9Others 3 8,9Don’t know 3 8,9Total 34 100,2

Addressing concerns Frequency PercentageLegislation 6 17,6Research 3 8,9Awareness & education 6 17,6Setting up a committee 5 14,7Not addressed 4 11,8Don’t know 10 29,4Total 34 100,0

Risks Frequency PercentageExport market 2 5,9Cross pollination & biodiversity 18 52,9Cross pollination & economic impacts 1 2,9Mutation 1 2,9Pest 3 8,9No risk 1 2,9Others 5 14,7Don’t know 3 8,9Total 34 100,0

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 31�

ethical concerns. Food safety risks are, broadly, toxic reactions, food allergies, antibiotic resistance and the presence of GMOs in animal feeds. Potential environmental risks are increased pesticide residues, genetic pollution, damage to beneficial organisms, creation of super weeds and super pests, and genetic bioinvasion. Issues falling under socioeconomic risks are the use of terminator technologies, the concentration of agribiotechnology research in developed countries, increase in the comparative advantage of developed countries in agricultural trade displacing products from developing countries, use of biosafety systems as trade barriers, adoption by farmers, and the identifiable and quantifiable costs and benefits of agribiotechnologies.

3%3%2 ��

Figure 15: Public perception of genetically modified crops.

According to the stakeholders, the public in general lack information about agricultural GM. Interestingly, 41.2% of respondents did not know how the public perceived genetic modification (Figure 15). Most of the others believed that those who were aware of it were either reticent about or feared the side effects of GM foods, and that such fears could have been caused by a lack of information and awareness, resulting in advocacy groups that imposed their preconceived ideas. So, as mentioned by Persley (2003), there is a need to assess, monitor and manage potential fears of GM crops by using an approach that helps to gain public confidence in regulatory systems.

Figure 16: Would you buy genetically modified food?

38.2

47.1

14.7

44.1

38.2

17.6

05

101520253035404550

Yes No Don’t know

GM same

GM cheaper

38.2% of the stakeholders were willing to buy GM food if it were the same price as food produced in more conventional ways, but 47.1% were not in favour of buying GM foods (Figure 16). However, 44.1% of them were willing to buy GM food if it were cheaper than food produced in conventional ways, suggesting that price can be a determinant in

20,6

17,6

11,88,8

41,2Fearful

Reticent

No concern

Others

Don’t know

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� 32�

acceptance of GM foods. The fact that they indirectly put a premium on foods produced by conventional means shows that stakeholders had generally developed a prior negative attitude to GM foods, perhaps due to a lack of awareness. Such attitudes are in sharp contrast to those of consumers who were prepared to pay a premium for GM foods with improved nutritional traits, like the Chinese consumers documented by Hossain, Onyango, Schilling, Hallman and Adelaja (2003), who were willing to pay more for ‘golden rice’.

3%3%3 . �� *��

55.9% of respondents thought that sugar cane had been genetically modified locally (Table 8). One respondent believed that maize had been genetically modified.

Table 8: What crops have been genetically modified locally?

Of the 22 respondents who thought that crops had been modified locally, 9 thought that such crops were commercially produced locally, whereas 16 of them thought that they were not commercially produced and the remainder said they did not know how they were produced.

29.4% of respondents thought that no GM crops had been approved for field trials, whereas 23.5% believed that sugar cane had been approved, and 38.2% admitted they did not know whether any crops had been approved or not (Table 9). In fact, only sugar cane has been genetically modified locally, but it has not been approved for trial, nor has it been commercially produced.

Table 9: What crops have been approved for trial locally?

14.7% of respondents asserted that there were no plans to introduce GM crops for testing locally, 23.5% believed there were plans to do so, and the remaining 52.9% did not know. In fact, there are plans to field test GM sugar cane, but such trials are awaiting a legal and institutional directive.

11.8% of respondents thought that there were plans to commercialise GM crops locally, 29.4% believed there were no plans to do so, and the remaining 58.8% did not know (Table 10).

Crops Frequency PercentageSugar cane 19 55.9Anthuriums & sugar cane 2 5.9Maize 1 2.9None 4 11.8Don’t know 8 23.6Total 34 100.0

Crops approved for trials Frequency PercentageSugar cane 8 23.6None 10 29.4Don’t know 16 47.1Total 34 100.0

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +4�

Table 10: Are there future plans to produce genetically modified crops commercially?

There are no foreseeable plans for commercial production of GM crops, given that GM crop trials have not yet been approved.

3%3%: �� *��

GM foods have opened new perspectives for trade: Exporting countries can now increase their exports and importing countries, especially net food importers, can now source cheaper food from the world market. This subsection assesses stakeholders’ knowledge of the production and trade of GM foods.

According to respondents, the main GM crops that are produced and traded internationally are cotton, maize, rice, soybeans, sunflowers and tomatoes. Table 11 gives the relative areas planted to different GM crops. Although these figures vary from year to year, the average is highly indicative.

Table 11: What is the area under genetically modified crops?

Source: Diaz-Bonilla (2002)

Table 12 presents the main GM exporters according to stakeholders. The majority of respondents thought that the US was the main GM exporter, followed by Argentina and China. This tallies with the actual situation, where the US, Argentina, Canada and China account for 68%, 23%, 7% and 1% of GM production respectively (Phillips, 2003). The US, Argentina and Canada are traditional exporters so they export their GM products too.

Table 12: Who are the main exporters of genetically modified crops and food?

Even though GM crops are produced and exported by a limited number of countries, the number of importing countries is large, mainly Asian and African countries. 44.1% of respondents said the main GM importers are developing countries. 50% of respondents (17

Are there plans to commercialise GM crops? Frequency PercentageYes 4 11,8No 10 29,4Don’t know 20 58,8Total 34 100,0

Genetically modified crops Average % of area plantedSoybeans 58,0Maize 23,0Cotton 12,0Canola 6,0Total 99,0

Countries Frequency PercentageUS 16 47,1Argentina 1 2,9US, China & India 2 5,8US & EU 3 8,8US, Argentina & China 2 5,8Others 1 2,9Don’t know 9 26,5Total 34 99,8

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +3�

out of 34) thought that Mauritius was such an importer, 23.5% thought it was not, and the remaining 26.4% did not know whether or not Mauritius was an importer.

The 17 respondents who believed that Mauritius was importing GM crops were asked to rank them in order of importance. The results are presented in Table 13 below.

Table 13: What genetically modified crops enter Mauritius?

Mauritius is far from self-sufficient in its requirements for animal feeds so the country did, in fact, import about 88 645 tonnes of maize in 2004, to be processed for animal feed. Almost all of it came from Argentina, which is a major GM maize producer and exporter. Imports of soybeans amounted to 150 tonnes and 94% of it came from Canada, which is a GM soybean producer and exporter.

It is therefore very probable that Mauritius is importing GM maize and soybeans. These imports are processed prior to being used, so the effects of processing on GM products need to be investigated and disseminated. Labelling and other means of traceability are of major importance here.

3%3%< ��*��

This subsection looks at international agreements on trade and biotechnology, and the awareness of respondents about such agreements.

There are three agreements that are relevant to agricultural trade and specifically to the trade of GMOs within the purview of the WTO. The SPS4 agreement relates to food safety, and plant and animal health, and allows the use of international standards as a basis for risk assessment exercises. But the problem is that there are no agreed-upon standards for GMOs, which can give rise to situations where countries can impede trade of GM crops or products. The TBT5 agreement pertains to technical regulations, voluntary standards and compliance procedures (In some cases, such standards can be classified as SPS measures). The third agreement is on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) and will be looked into in subsection 5.5.11.

20.6% of respondents were aware that the country had ratified the CP, but only three of them knew that the country was signatory to the SPS and TBT agreements (Table 14). This highlights their ignorance of international agreements relating to trade in general and biotechnology in particular, and whether such agreements would be compatible with each other in implementation.

4 sanitary and phytosanitary 5 technical barrier to trade

Rank Genetically modified crops1 Maize2 Soybeans3 Cotton4 Sunflowers6 Tomato

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ++�

Table 14: What international agreements on trade and biotechnology does Mauritius have?

As mentioned in Section 3.4.1, the CP builds upon the precautionary principle, which encourages countries to decide on criteria for allowing entry of GM crops and products, even if they lack the relevant information to make informed decisions. This can act as a trade barrier.

3%3%= �*��*��

As presented in Table 15, the main factors limiting the import of tomatoes into Mauritius are SPS norms. Sugar imports face high tariffs, whereas potato imports face restricted and seasonal quotas.

As discussed in Section 5.5.6, there is a possibility that the maize that is imported into Mauritius is GM. According to the CP precautionary principle, Mauritius could refuse to allow maize to be imported and the precautionary principle could consequently act as a non-tariff barrier, but this is actually not the case: There are no restrictions on the import of maize or soybeans.

Table 15: What are the market barriers to trade in certain commodities?

3%3%> ��*��

This section reveals the stakeholders’ knowledge of the biotechnology legislation and biosafety frameworks in place locally.

International agreements Frequency PercentageConvention on Biological Diversity 1 2,9Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 5 14,7Convention on Biological Diversity & Cartagena Protocol 1 2,9Sanitary and phytosanitary & Technical barriers to trade 3 8,8None 3 8,8Don’t know 14 41,2Others 6 17,6Total 33 96,9

Market access barriers Maize Potato Tomato Sugar SoybeanSanitary & phytosanitary 11,8 17,6 26,5 5,9 8,8Quota 2,9 5,9 – 8,8 –Other non-tariff 2,9 2,9 2,9 5,8 2,9Tariff 2,9 – – 14,7 –Other 8,8 11,8 – 2,9 2,9Don’t know 58,8 61,8 64,7 55,9 82,4None 8,8 2,9 5,9 2,9 2,9Total 96,9 102,9 100,0 96,9 99,9

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +,�

Figure 17: Knowledge of frameworks and policy arrangements.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NFP, GMO Act &NBC

GMO Act & NBC Don’t know Others

53% of respondents knew that the GMO legislation had been enacted and that an NBC had been instituted (Figure 17). But only five of those knew which sections of the Act had been proclaimed and about the existence of an NFP.

35.3% of respondents considered that it was necessary to have a GMO Act to provide a legislative framework for regulating GM-related activities. Eight of the 34 respondents claimed that this legislation would help in allowing GM research. 8.8% thought that Mauritius had to legislate as a signatory of the CP in order to conform with it. The remaining 11 respondents could give no reason why the legislation and the associated framework came about.

12 of the 17 respondents who believed that their institutions were represented when devising frameworks and making policy arrangements thought that their views had been taken into consideration in formulating the GMO Act.

The majority of respondents (55.9%) did not know what had been done to comply with the CP. 35.3% of them were aware of the GMO Act and the setting up of the NBC (Table 16).

Table 16: What has Mauritius done to comply with the Cartagena Protocol?

Under the provisions of the CP, Mauritius can assess risks associated with GM crops and indicate its willingness to accept or not to accept. Such decisions must be based on information derived from effective biosafety systems, and the local biosafety system consists of a GMO Act under which an NBC has been instituted. As mentioned in Section 3.4.3, the country also has an NFP, which is linked to the biosafety clearing house.

Table 17 shows the results when respondents were asked whether Mauritius had a biotechnology strategy and policy.

Actions Frequency PercentageGenetically Modified Organisms Act & National Biosafety Committee 12 35,3Others 1 2,9Sharing of information 1 2,9Technical back up to committee 1 2,9Don’t know 19 55,9Total 34 99,9

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +-�

Table 17: Does Mauritius have a national biotechnology strategy and policy?

In fact, Mauritius has neither a national biotechnology policy nor a national biotechnology strategy (see section 5.6.1).

44.1% and 58.8% respectively of respondents thought that Mauritius had a biosafety law and guidelines. 20.6 % of them were not aware of any biosafety laws and guidelines (Table 18).

Table 18: Does Mauritius have a biosafety law and have guidelines and regulations been formulated?

Sections of the GMO Act do provide for biosafety regulations and procedures. As mentioned in Section 3.1, the MSIRI also prepared biosafety guidelines and these have been partly used in the drafting of the GMO Bill.

3%3%$? /# ��

7.2% of respondents thought that Mauritius had set GM standards, 53.6% claimed that there were no such standards, and the remainder either did not know or believed that standards were in the process of being set (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Does Mauritius have genetic modification standards for non-GM foods?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No Don't know In the process of

Actually no GM standards have been set, either for food or for feed.

Strategy & policy Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Yes 10 29,4 19 55,9No 16 47,1 9 26,5Don’t know 8 23,5 6 17,6Total 34 100,0 34 100,0

National biotechnology strategy National biotechnology policy

Strategy & policy Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Yes 15 44,1 20 58,8No 12 35,3 7 20,6Don’t know 7 20,6 7 20,6Total 34 100,0 34 100,0

Biosafety law Guidelines & formulation

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +.�

�% .��

Another related aspect is labelling standards to be used for GM foods. The Codex Committee on food labelling has only agreed on some basic definitions and is still divided between the process and product aspects of GM foods (Kalaizandonakes, 1999b). Labelling standards are therefore still open for debate and international consensus has not been reached. Consequently, Mauritius has two options, namely to set GM standards and GM labelling standards based on the American or European stance or to wait for the Codex to be finalized and then set labelling standards.

3%3%$$ ��

IPR laws are safeguards that encourage an inventor to disclose his invention and encourage governments to provide inventors with a monopoly for a specific period of time. There are international laws, treaties, protocols or agreements on IPRs. The World Intellectual Property Organisation and the World Trade Organization (WTO) enforce laws on trade-related IPRs (TRIPs) internationally. Mauritius is a signatory to the WTO, therefore has to abide by the TRIPS agreement, which includes agriculture, agroprocesses and agroproducts, so as not to suffer the costs of non-compliance.

The two laws that uphold IPRs locally are the Patents, Industrial Design and Trademarks Act and the Copyrights Act. According to 38.2% of respondents, the courts and the rest of the judiciary system enforce compliance with these acts (Table 19). 11.8% thought they do not and the rest did not know whether they enforce those acts or not.

Table 19: What intellectual property acts are being imposed in Mauritius?

Mauritius has not yet enacted laws for the protection of plant varieties and therefore is not in conformity with the UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), although there are two Bills in preparation and awaiting enactment, namely, the Plant Varieties Bill and the Seed Bill. There is therefore a need to assess how these can be used in accordance with existing legislation to protect IPRs of GM agriproducts, so that the country can be in conformity with international laws and treaties. Stakeholders involved in GM should also be made aware of existing and future legislation and treaties so that they can position themselves to shoulder their responsibilities.

3%3%$+ 4��

Three-quarters (75%) of respondents thought that Mauritius had not received any GM food aid and the rest did not know (Figure 19). In fact, Mauritius has not been a food aid receiver since 1996.

Actions Frequency PercentagePatents, Industrial Design and Trademark Act 5 14,7Copyrights Act 3 8,8Patents Act & Copyrights Act 3 8,8None 2 5,9Others 5 14,7Don’t know 16 47,1Total 34 100,0

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +/�

Figure 19: Has Mauritius received genetically modified food aid?

Ten of the 34 stakeholders believed that the country did not have a position on GM food aid, were it to be required (Table 20). 14 of them did not know what its position was.

Table 20: What is the country’s position on genetically modified food aid?

The country does have an official policy on GM food aid, even though it is not a food aid recipient: If GM food aid were required and available, then it would go through the same procedures and systems as GM foods.

Agribiotechnology is closely linked with the food security issue in mainland Africa as it can potentially increase food supply and access. Mauritius fortunately does not experience aggregate food insecurity, therefore the argument that agribiotechnology can ensure food security is not necessarily a valid one for the island.

3%3%$1 -��*��@��*��

73.5% of respondents recognized the importance of a harmonized regional biosafety system, but also acknowledged that this will not easily materialize because there are several constraints. Respondents identified the main constraints as being financial, infrastructural, legal, capacity and expertise, but failed to specifically nail down the significance of such constraints locally and were even less specific about the regional significance.

The lack of a harmonized regional position can raise considerable operational problems when trading and moving humanitarian aid. This gives rise to extra transaction costs but, more importantly, can hamper the receipt of life-saving GM aid by food insecure countries where there are no well-oiled biosafety systems that can quickly run a risk assessment and take informed decisions. The need for harmonized biosafety systems is especially felt by food-insecure, land-locked countries, which require food aid to transit through neighbouring countries to reach them. Because Mauritius is insular, it does not necessarily require the harmonization of its biosafety system for the transboundary-movement issue affecting land-locked countries. Nevertheless, a harmonized biosafety system would definitely facilitate risk assessment if Mauritius were to receive food aid or simply started regulating the import of GM foods from the region.

The SADC Council of Ministers for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources realised the importance of biosafety systems and approved the establishment of a committee on biotechnology and biosafety to develop guidelines that would help set up regionally

74%

27%

No

Don't know

Position Frequency PercentageNone 10 29,4Reject 1 2,9Don’t know 14 41,2Others 9 26,5Total 34 100,0

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +0�

harmonized biosafety systems (SADC, 2003). Such guidelines should map out a framework, to help countries, including Mauritius, position themselves with respect to building a biosafety system and simultaneously harmonizing it with its regional counterparts.

3%: ��This section introduces parameters that need to be present for a biosafety system to be fully operational and efficient, and rates the local situation accordingly.

3%:%$ &��

Biotechnology research strategies have been defined (Antoine and Persley, 1992) and the Food and Agricultural Research Council (FARC) has submitted a draft Biotechnology Strategy to the parent Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries (Ramkissoon, 2000) but it has not yet been circulated to relevant stakeholders for views and suggestions. Therefore, to date, Mauritius lacks a formal National Biotechnology Strategy.

3%:%+ &��

�% ��

The Ministry of Agro-Industry and Fisheries is the responsible agency and the chairman of the NBC is answerable to the same Ministry, to whom it communicates the deliberations of the committee.

�% ��*��

Mauritius has ratified the CP, therefore it is bound to abide by its provisions. It has subsequently enacted GMO legislation but not all sections of the GMO Act have been proclaimed, which minimises the powers of the legislation.

�% /��

As described in Section 4.1, the GMO Act provides for biosafety guidelines and regulations. If the act were fully proclaimed, it would provide the foundation for an effective biosafety system.

(% �� **��

An NBC has been set up, but the role of the committee is still limited to investigating the implications of proclaiming the remaining sections of the act.

,% � �� **��

There is no independent technical arm of the NBC to examine risk assessment documentation on permit applications (if they were required) and advise the Permanent Secretary accordingly, or to conduct risk assessments. This is a major weakness and is one of the reasons why some sections of the act have not yet been proclaimed.

4% .��

There are no independent laboratories to carry out GM food tests locally. The situation could change with the coming Food Laboratory, but its mandate with respect to screening GM products has not yet been defined. National standards for GM foods and or feeds have yet to be set and harmonized with regional and international standards.

/% 4��A��

The smallness of the island can lead to gene flow, therefore field-testing facilities should address this risk. No such independent facilities exist locally

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +1�

-% # � ��*��

There is a lack of designated independent facilities for review and appeal, even though the law makes provision for it.

�% ��

The sustainability of any biosafety system depends on the sustainable availability of funds. The financial requirements of the different components of the system therefore need to be earmarked at the outset and then the different sources of funding need to be identified.

B% ��&��C��

The stakeholder analysis has shown that respondents who are members of the NBC are more aware of the issues surrounding GM and biosafety. Some of these issues are of public interest, therefore they should be communicated and opened for debate. This would also increase awareness and allay some of the concerns related to GM.

There is a lack of communication with regional institutions, yet building regional ties could help solve some of the weaknesses of the local biosafety system. For example, regional expertise could be used for risk assessment and risk management, and more effective use of clearing houses, while regional laboratories could be used for GMO tests.

3%:%1 (��

The GMO Act provides for accidents but the relevant clause has not been proclaimed.

3%:%2 ��*��*��*��

There is no system for gathering information on imports of GM crops or foods. Such a system should have enough capacity to effectively contribute to and use clearing houses. Here the role of the NFP should be redefined and strengthened to more effectively monitor developments on agribiotechnology and genetic modification, and to inform the NBC when these could have an impact on the country.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� +2�

:% �,�'# # ,&(��'&��

:%$ ��The stakeholder analysis has shown that there is a considerable gap in knowledge between what stakeholders ‘know’ and the actual state of affairs. This issue needs to be addressed.

There was a lack of a broader consultative process in the formulation and preparation of the GMO legislation, which has contributed to a lack of awareness in stakeholders at all levels. Consumer confidence in the GM regulation is vital for its outcome to be credible and acceptable. Stakeholders, consumers and/or consumer groups therefore need to be involved, consulted and encouraged to participate in all processes, and their views should be considered fully in the decision-making process. However, to make their voices heard and to be effective in such discussions, they need to be knowledgeable about the issues under discussion, so it is necessary to foster better public awareness.

:%+ ��This exercise has highlighted that a national biotechnology strategy and the main components of a biosafety system are lacking. These are major constraints for those who need to objectively balance and reap the benefits of research, development, commercialisation, import and export of GM crops. Such weaknesses need to be tackled at various levels and some areas and recommendations are presented below.

:%+%$ .��

If the above-mentioned technical constraints are removed, then the sections of the GMO Act pertaining to risk assessment and permit allocation can be proclaimed and enforced. Care must be taken that such applications should not be ensnarled in bureaucratic complexities, lack of transparency, information asymmetry and increasing data demand. These could discourage import, transfer, testing and commercialization of beneficial GM products.

The Plant Breeders Rights and Seed Bills need to be finalized in accordance with existing legislation and enacted.

:%+%+ ��

Mauritius needs to decide how to address a number of issues left to national discretion in the CP, e.g., how to balance its rights and obligations under the CP with its commitments under the WTO. The links among the different institutions dealing with agribiotechnological research, production and trade should be clearly spelt out in a national biotechnology strategy. This is an important roadmap for the vision, priorities, responsibilities and jurisdictional competencies for research, development, trade and consumption of biotechnology and GM-derived products locally. Such a strategy is important for policy-making and decision-taking to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks associated with biotechnology and genetic modification.

:%+%1 ��

Mauritius faces many challenges in conforming to the CP, because its capacity to implement, monitor and enforce national biosafety laws remains weak. It is therefore vital that it build the human capacity required for establishing efficient systems that promote biosafety.

:%+%2 ��

There should be a technical arm of the NBC. This would allow it to check documentation on risk assessments and conduct test on samples if needs be. This technical back-up could take several forms and it could be publicly or privately run but, most importantly, it must be

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,4�

independent, efficient, accountable and provide timely information to the NBC so that it can advise the Permanent Secretary accordingly.

:%+%3 ��*��

There is a need to boost public confidence in the country’s ability to manage GMOs safely. This will require the NBC and the NFP to play increasingly out-reaching roles with respect to issues concerning GM food safety. Information provision would increase trust in the NBC and the NFP, and in the Ministry of AgroIndustry as the enforcing agency.

:%+%: ��

Trade protocol and the need for free market access, coupled to the lack of human and infrastructural capacity, makes it important for SADC countries to establish a concerted and integrated approach to deal with agricultural trade, including trade in GM foods. At the same time, such an approach must take into account the substantial variation among SADC members in terms of their capacity to develop and use genetically modified products.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,3�

<% �'&�.)��'&��Mauritius does not suffer from chronic food insecurity, therefore the potential benefits of agribiotechnology in ensuring food security are not really pertinent locally. But it is highly probable that GM foods and feeds are entering the country, therefore proper risk assessments need to be carried out on those to ensure that Mauritian consumers can make an informed choice.

A stakeholder study has shown that stakeholders who are members of the NBC are well informed about the issues surrounding genetic modification. Others know about the issues falling under their area of expertise, but are less informed about the subjects falling outside their area of jurisdiction. Some stakeholders are relatively uninformed. It is important that this information gap at the stakeholders’ level be bridged, as they are the ones who are responsible for making policies about agribiotechnology and biosafety.

Mauritius has made some progress in setting up a biosafety framework, by enacting GMO legislation. But the GMO Act must be fully instituted and the remaining components of the regulatory system must be put in place to ensure that Mauritius can fully benefit from GM crops and foods.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,+�

=% �,4,�,&�,��Altieri, M.A. & Rosset, P. (1999). 10 reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect

the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. AgBioForum 2(3&4), 3-7.

Antoine, R. & Persley, G.J.A. (1992). Strategy for biotechnology research: Mauritius. In: ISNAR International Workshop on Management Strategies and Policies for Agricultural Research in Small Countries. 20 April – 2 May, 1992. University of Mauritius, Réduit, Mauritius.

Autrey, J.C. & Dookun-Saumtally, A. (2004). Agricultural biotechnology in small states: The Mauritian experience. In Biswas, R. (ed.) Agriculture in the Commonwealth. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 42-44.

Bank of Mauritius. (2005). Net international reserves. Monthly Bulletin, July 2005.

Carter, C.A. & Gruère, G.P. (2003). International approaches to labeling genetically modified food. Choices, 2003(2), 1-4. <http://www.choicesmagazine.org>.

Cohen, J. & Paarlberg, R. (2002). Explaining restricted approval and availability of GM crops in developing countries. AgBiotechNet, 4.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes. Montreal: Secretariat of the CBD.

Diaz-Bonilla, E. (2002). Biotechnology and international trade. PowerPoint presentation at a conference on Agricultural Biotechnology: Can it help reduce hunger in Africa? Washington, DC, March 5–7.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: FAO. Statistical database available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fao.org/waicent/portal/statistics_en.asp

Hoban, T. (1999). Trends in consumer attitudes about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum 1(1), 3-7.

Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B., Hallman, W. & Adelaja, A. (2003). Product attributes, consumer benefits and public approval of genetic modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27, 353-365.

Kalaizandonakes, N. (1999a). A farm-level perspective on agrobiotechnology: How much value and for whom? AgBioForum 2(2), 61-64.

Kalaizandonakes, N. (1999b). GM food labelling and the role of the Codex. AgBioForum 3(4), 188-191.

Korwek, E.L. (2000). Labeling biotech foods: Opening Pandora’s box? Food Technology, 54(3), 38-42.

Mauritius. (1999).Food Regulations.

Mauritius. (2002).Genetically Modified Organisms Act.

Mauritius. (2002).Patents, Industrial Design and Trademark Act.

Mauritius. (1997).Copyrights Act.

Mauritius. (2002).Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks Act

Mauritius, Central Statistical Office (2004a). Annual Digest of Statistics.

Mauritius, Central Statistical Office (2004b). Digest of Agricultural Statistics.

Mauritius, Ministry of Agriculture (2003a). Non-sugar strategic sector plan.

Mauritius, Ministry of Agriculture (2003b). Sugar sector strategic plan.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,,�

Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (1999). National guidelines for the safe development and introduction of genetically modified organisms in Mauritius. UNEP/GEF Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity Project. Reduit, Mauritius: MSIRI.

McGloughlin, M. (1999). 10 reasons why biotechnology will be important to the developing world. AgBioForum 2(3&4), 16-174.

Peacock, W.J. (1992). Key elements of modern biotechnology of relevance to agriculture. In Peters, G.H. & Stanton, B.F. (eds) Sustainable agricultural development: The role of international cooperation. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference of Agricultural Economists, Japan.

Persley, G. (2003). Scientific discoveries – societal dilemmas. International Council for Science, New Genetics, Food and Agriculture. 56 pp.

Phillips, P. (2003). The economic impact of herbicide tolerant canola in Canada. In N. Kalaizandonakes (ed.) The economic and environmental impacts of agbiotech: A global perspective. Kluwer, pp. 119-140.

Puchooa, D. (2004). Biotechnology in Mauritius: Current status and constraints. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 7(2).

Ramkissoon, J. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology strategy of Mauritius: A re-appraisal and renewal process. FARC Discussion Paper no. 1, submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Technology and Natural Resources on 20 April 2000. Reduit, Mauritius: Food and Agricultural Research Council.

Ramkissoon, J. (2002). Biotechnology RTD in Mauritius. Chronology of the policy and development process. FARC Technical Paper no. 1. Reduit, Mauritius: Food and Agricultural Research Council.

Southern African Development Community (2003). SADC responds to GMO debate. SADC Seed Update (electronic newsletter of the SADC Seed Security Network), issue no. 2. <http://www.sadc-fanr.org.zw/ssn/news/SADCSEEDUpdateN22003.pdf>

Traynor, P.L. & Macharia, H.K. (2003) Analysis of the biosafety system for biotechnology in Kenya: Application of a conceptual framework. ISNAR Country Report 65. The Hague, the Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,-�

��,&(��,��

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,.�

��;�$��$% �� ,;��)��

Type of organisation: Agricultural research and development institution.

Mission: To serve the non-sugar agricultural sector (crop and livestock) through excellence in cost-effective high-quality research and extension for better agricultural production, and to meet the policy requirements of the government in terms of agricultural diversification and food production generally.

Address: 3rd Floor, Newry Complex, St Jean Road, Quatre Bornes.

Internet: www.areu.mu

Contact person: Mr S. Naidu

Title: Director

Phone number: 466-3885

Fax: 464-8809

Email: [email protected]

Nature of interest expressed in the project: Interested

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,/�

+% �� ,;��-�� D�# ��

Type of organisation: Exporters

Scope and mandate of company: The Association des Producteurs et Exportateurs des Produits Horticole à Maurice groups producers and exporters of horticultural products in Mauritius thus facilitating the imports and exports of their products. It works on the following fields: processed flowers, fruit and vegetables, spices, products. Its role is to safeguard the interests of the horticultural operators, in particular people involved in export.

Address: Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, Moka.

Contact person: Ms Raïfa Bundhun

Title: Secretary General


Fax: 433- 4862



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,0�

1% �*��,�� C�.E��

Type of organisation: Food Importers/Exporters

Scope and mandate of company: Packaging, import and export (exchange) of food to Regional and Asian countries.

Address: Royal Rd, Beau-Bassin.

Contact person: Mr Jean-Marie Ng

Title: Manager


Nature of interest expressed in the project: interested

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,1�

2% 4��


Mission: To contribute to the mission of Government by:

• Providing research-based policy advice and developing national strategies for R&D in the agrifood, forestry and fisheries sectors and underpinning natural resource base;

• Coordinating, supporting, harmonizing and conducting R&D enterprises thereon, covering the entire commodity chain from basic processes to finished products and services through to consumption, including potential of emerging technologies and economic, social and other relevant issues;

• Monitoring and evaluation, including impact analysis;

• Providing access to, and dissemination of, research related knowledge and information;

Vision: To enhance the competitiveness, sustainability and consumer interest of the Mauritian agrifood systems, and the quality of life.

Address: Réduit, Mauritius

Internet: http://farc.gov.mu/

Contact person: Mr A. Bachraz

Title: Programme Manager


Fax: 465-3344



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ,2�

3% ��*��

Type of organisation: Consumer organizations

Address: Hansrod Building, 2nd floor, cnr Jummah Mosque, Virgil Naz, Port-Louis

Contact person: Mr Mosadeq Sahebdin


Fax: 211-4436



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -4�

:% ��.�*��"�� *� ��

Type of organisation: Input suppliers.

Scope and mandate of company: Ireland Blyth Limited is one of the largest groups in Mauritius, with activities in a wide range of sectors, from marketing and distribution of consumer goods and durables, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and pesticides to mechanical and electrical engineering and cold storage operations.

Mission statement

• Providing products and services that meet or exceed expectations of customers

• Committed to development, advancement and involvement of employers

• Provide competent management with the appropriate expertise, who will provide leadership, guidance and know-how and who will strive to best utilise resources to achieve corporate objectives.

• Creating shareholder wealth at a rate sufficient for the group to take full advantage of future market possibilities while satisfying the needs of customers, employees and principals.

• Play a social role as a contributor towards the further development of Mauritius and of the region.

• Continue to respect the environment and will act responsibly towards its improvement for future generations.

Address: Royal Road, Cassis, Mauritius.

Internet: http://www.iblgroup.com/

Contact person: Mrs K. Bucktowar

Title: Business Developer

Phone number: 423-0617, 207-0410, 207-0415

Fax: +230 207-0411



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -3�

<% .��# ��&��

Type of organisation: Informed respondent

Scope and mandate of company: Disseminate information to the public

Contact person: Ms Z. Budulla

Address: 6, La Poudrière Street, Aapca House, Port-Louis

Title: Reporter



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -+�

15 # ��*��

Type of organisation: Farmers’ organizations

Scope and mandate of company

• Safeguard and promote interests of agriculture, agricultural industries and allied industries

• Serves as forum for formulation of policies

• Presents proposals to Government, reflecting the needs and interests of its members

• The Chamber is also responsible for establishing a database on agricultural activities in Mauritius.

Address: Plantation House, Duke of Edinburgh Avenue, Port-Louis.

Contact person: Ms Pamela Leste

Title: Assistant to Officer in Charge for Diversification

Phone number: 208-0812, 211-3034, 208-0747

Fax: 208-1269



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -,�

>% # ��*��**��

Type of organisation: Trade organisation

Scope and mandate of company

• Represent its members and submit views and proposals to the authorities on their behalf

• Maintain structured forms of dialogue with the public authorities

• Participate in the elaboration of strategies and policies meant to enhance the economic and social development processes of the country

• Encourage and facilitate interaction of its members with the public authorities in Mauritius and business organisations abroad

• Collect, analyse and disseminate information to its members

• Encourage investment, productivity and improvements in technology in the country

• Promote trade in goods and services

• Organise training activities in the fields of information technology and international trade

• Initiate cooperation and affiliation programmes and other links with international organizations meant to further the interests of its members and the business community as a whole.

Address: 3, Royal Street, Port-Louis

Internet: www.mcci.org

Contact person: Ms P. Anadachee

Title: Analyst – Trade Division


Fax: 208-0076


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� --�

$?% # ��


Mission: Promoting and pioneering research for sustainable development to enhance the quality of life of the people of Mauritius.

Vision: To be the driving force behind research for national development.

Objectives of the company:

• foster, promote and co-ordinate research and development in all spheres of scientific, technological, social and economic activities;

• advise the government on all matters concerning scientific and technological policies;

• lay guidelines for, and initiate the formulation of research and development policies on a national basis;

• encourage commercial utilisation of research and development results in the national interest.

Address: La Maison de Carne, Royal Road, Rose Hill

Internet: www.mrc.org.mu

Contact person: Dr A. Sudhoo

Title: Executive Director


Fax: 465-1239



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -.�

$$% # ��


Scope and mandate of company:

Established under the Mauritius Standards Bureau Act 1993, the Mauritius Standards Bureau (MSB) is a corporate body that sets appropriate standards defining the products and containing specifications that should be satisfied by a particular food. For example, there are MS 65(1985) specifications for processed chicken and MS ISO 9000 services for quality control. The MSB is also involved in:

• The control of weights and measures

• Certification

• Standards setting

• Quality assurance

• Dissemination of technical information to the food industry

• Testing products physically, chemically and microbiologically in very well-equipped laboratories and by qualified technicians.

Apart from standardisation services, the MSB provides international traceability of measurements and internationally accredited conformity assessment services for the benefit of their shareholders. It has nine technical committees, among which is the Food and Agriculture Standards Committee. Standards drafted by the MSB are generally voluntary in nature, as opposed to the Food Regulations 1999, which are mandatory.

Contact person: Mrs R. Nanhuck

Address: Villa Road, Moka

Title: Technical Manager


Fax: 433-5150, 433-5051



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -/�

$+% # ��


Mission: The mission of the MSIRI is to carry out high quality research and development on sugar cane and other crops that meet the agricultural, commercial, and societal needs of Mauritius. The Institute seeks to enhance its role as a centre of excellence.


Internet: [email protected]

Contact persons:

Dr Jean Claude Autrey, Director, MSIRI, Réduit

Dr Asha Dookun-Saumtally, Head Biotechnology Department, MSIRI, Réduit


Fax: 454-1971


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -0�

$1% # ��


Mission: The mission of the MSIRI is to carry out high quality research and development on sugar cane and other crops that meet the agricultural, commercial, and societal needs of Mauritius. The Institute seeks to enhance its role as a centre of excellence.


Contact person: Dr S. Ganeshan

Title: Head of Department Entomology


Fax: 454-1971


Nature of interest expressed in the project: Interested.

�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -1�

$2% # ��!��F��

Type of organisation: Farmers’ organisations

Scope and mandate of company: The objectives of the Association are mainly: -

• To promote the economic interests of its members and more particularly to arrange a better production of vegetables, flowers & fruits in Mauritius.

• Obtaining, regulating and supervising the production of vegetables

• Creating a laboratory for experiences and new ideas for a better production of vegetables in Mauritius.

• Encouraging improved methods of agricultural production and land improvement such as bulldozing and road repairs.

• To set up and run a spraying service for the control of pests diseases in crops among backyard growers.

• Working as facilitator between different parties.

• Making recreational sessions and seminars to educate the members of the Association about modern planting system.

• Facilitating loan negotiations for members.

• Providing special financial grants to members.

• Establish administrative links with local, regional and international bodies for the exchange of ideas and experiences.

• Introduce a project whereby consumers can buy directly from planters at a cheaper rate.

Internet: www.mvpaweb.org

Contact person: Mr D. Lokee

Address: 4, 1st floor, George Town Building, Saint-Jean Street, Quatre Bornes, Mauritius

Title: President


Fax: 467-1226



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� -2�

$3% # ��4��.�*��

Type of organisation: Input importers

Scope and mandate of company: Animal feed production

Address: Riche-Terre Road, Riche-Terre

Contact person: Mr C. Pondet

Title: Nutritionist


Fax: 248-1837



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .4�

$:% # ��A��4��"��

Type of organisation: Government body

Mission

• To give a new boost to the agricultural sector through the development of new business avenues.

• To provide new opportunities to the planting community.

Vision: The adoption of modern production techniques and innovative technologies in an organised framework to face the challenges, inter alia of: pressures on land resources, climatic uncertainties, rising costs of imported inputs, exposure to pests, rigorous sanitary and phytosanitary norms.

Internet: http://agriculture.gov.mu/

Contact person: Mr Naidoo Gopalakrishna

Title: Acting Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer



Fax: 464-8749



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .3�

$<% # ��A��4��"��


Mission





Contact person: Mr Panchoo Veer Abhimanyu

Title: Principal Agricultural Officer



Fax: 464-8749



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .+�

$=% # ��A��4��"��


Mission





Contact person: Mrs B. R. Kureemun

Title: Senior Research and Development Officer


Phone number: 454-1091, 464-4895

Fax: 464-8749


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .,�

$>% # ��A��4��"�(��-��


Mission




Address: Réduit, Mauritius.


Contact person: Mr Y. Boodoo

Title: Ag. Principal Research and Development Officer


Fax: 464-4857


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .-�

+?% # ��A��4��"��(��*��


Mission: To give a new boost to the agricultural sector through the development of new business avenues and to provide new opportunities to the planting community.

Vision: The adoption of modern production techniques and innovative technologies in an organised framework to face the challenges, inter-alia of: pressures on land resources, climatic uncertainties, rising costs of imported inputs, exposure to pests, rigorous sanitary and phytosanitary norms.



Contact person: Mrs P. Seebun

Title: Research and Development Officer

Phone number: 466-8086, 465-4902, 466-8960

Fax: 465-9591



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ..�

+$% # ��,�� -�*��


Mission: Driving strategically our human resources towards a knowledge-based economy

Vision: To create a nation having a highly adaptable, versatile and up to date labour force

Internet: http://ministry-education.gov.mu/

Contact person: Mrs J. Jaunbocus

Title: Principal Assistant Secretary

Address: IVTB House, Phoenix


Fax: 686-2589


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� ./�

++% # ��-��G��.��


Mission

• Enhance the health status of the population

• Improve the quality of health care delivery with a view to increasing patients’ satisfaction

• Enhance social equity through the provision of a wider range of health services to the whole population

• Ensure that the health sector is consolidated and that the health services remain accessible to every citizen

Internet: http://health.gov.mu/

Contact person: Mr S. K. Sohun

Title: Ag. Chief Health Inspector

Address: Atchia Building, Suffren and Mgr Gonin Street, Port-Louis

Phone number: 210-3948, 210-1280, 212-5399

Fax: 212-5060


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .0�

+1% # ��5 *��F��C��(��*��C�4�*��5 ��H��*��


Scope and mandate of company: The Consumer Protection Unit (CPU) is a specialized section within the Ministry of Commerce and Consumer Protection, which caters, as its name implies, for the protection of consumers in general. The CPU has the responsibility of enforcing the various consumer legislations and of providing overall consumer satisfaction and security. The main objectives of the CPU are as follows:

• To protect consumers through enforcement of laws by visiting retail outlets.

• To educate consumers of their rights and responsibilities through talks on the different legislations to all stakeholders, viz. women’s’ associations, youth clubs, colleges, social welfare centres, radios and television etc

• To settle disputes between traders and consumers by mutual agreement or through a court of justice.

• To bring amendments to existing laws and prepare new legislations where necessary, to meet new challenges.

Internet: http://commerce.gov.mu/

Contact person: Mr A. Peerboccus

Title: Consumer Protection Officer

Address: 2nd floor, Fonsing Building, Pope Hennessey, Port-Louis

Phone number: 208-0511,208-3424, 208-3426

Fax: 211-6900


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .1�

+2% ��I��/��

Type of organisation: Informed respondents

Scope and mandate of company: The Rajiv Gandhi Science Centre is a non-formal educational institution for the promotion of science and technology among students and members of the public.

Mission

• Promote science and technology through various programmes, activities and exhibitions.

• Inculcate awareness in scientific fields among the Mauritian public in general.

• Supplement school education in a non-formal way by programming science demonstration lectures, science fairs, science seminars and other outreach programmes for children.

• Inculcate creativity among young people.

• Popularise science with an aim of enhancing the public understanding of science and technology

Internet: http://rgsc.gov.mu/

Contact person: Dr N. Taleb-Hossenkhan

Address: Old Moka Road, Bell-Village

Title: Resource Officer


Fax: 213-2726


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� .2�

+3% ��4��%�.��

Type of organisation: Input supplier

Scope and mandate of company: Import of agricultural inputs and machinery

Contact person: Mr Hervé Bonnet

Address: Industrial zone, Plaine Lauzun

Title: Product Development Manager

Phone number: 211-2112, 211-2113, 208-1806

Fax: 210-8565, 208-8545



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /4�

+:% )��# ��


Mission: The mission of the University of Mauritius is to provide an efficient and effective service to the community through quality teaching, research, consultancy and extension services, consistent with national goals and policies, supportive of regional thrusts and orientations, and in conformance with international norms and standards. In achieving its mission, the University is committed to prepare students for an increasingly complex social and technological world and to improve the well-being of the people of the Republic of Mauritius.

Vision: The University of Mauritius, based in a small-island-state, seeks to be a university of international standing and a leading institution in the region.

Contact person: Mrs S. Buldewo

Title: PhD Student – Biotechnology


Fax: 465-5743


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /3�

+<% )��# ��




Contact person: Ms Z. Mungloo

Title: PhD Student – Food Science


�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /+�

+=% )��# ��"�4� ��

Type of organisation: Academic expert



Contact person: Mrs B. Tatayah

Title: Lecturer


Phone number: +230 454-1041, ext 1290

Fax: 454-9642



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /,�

+>% )��# ��"�4� ��




Contact person: Mr D. Puchooa

Title: Lecturer


Phone number: +230 454-1041

Fax: 454 9642



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /-�

1?% )��# ��"�4� ��




Contact person: Dr S. Jawaheer

Title: Lecturer-biological sciences


Phone number: (230) 454-1041

Fax: 454-9642



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /.�

1$% )��# ��"�4� ��




Contact person: Dr D. Daby

Title: Senior Lecturer – Environmental Science

Address: Réduit, Mauritius.

Phone number: (230) 454-1041

Fax: 454-9642



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� //�

1+% )��# ��"�4� �� -�*��




Contact person: Dr V. D. Ancharaz

Title: Lecturer


Phone number: (230) 454-1041

Fax: 454-9642



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /0�

11% )��&��(��*��**��

Type of organisation: Food aid organisations

Scope and mandate of company: The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UN’s global development network, an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life.

The focus of UNDP is helping countries build and share solutions to the challenges of:

• Democratic Governance

• Poverty Reduction

• Crisis Prevention and Recovery

• Energy and Environment

• HIV/AIDS

UNDP helps developing countries attract and use aid effectively.

In each country office, the UNDP Resident Representative normally also serves as the Resident Coordinator of development activities for the United Nations system as a whole. Through such coordination, UNDP seeks to ensure the most effective use of UN and international aid resources.

Internet: http://www.undo.org/sgp

Contact person: Ms Pamela Bapoo-Dundoo

Title: ECO-counsellor, National Coordinator, UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme

Address: Anglo-Mauritius House. P.O. Box 253, Port-Louis, Mauritius

Phone number: 208-2416, 208-3807, 211-0155

Fax: 208-4871



�� !"�#��$��"�%��"�$��$��&�"��'�( �%�"�"%��

� /1�

��;�+��*��(��*��# �� Year Activity Institution/Framework 1992 Mauritius ratifies the CBD GM6 1993 Work initiated on the development of transgenic

sugar cane MSIRI

1995 Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety CBD 1996 Institutional Biosafety Committee constituted MSIRI 1999 Preparation of National Biosafety Framework in

Mauritius under UNEP/GEF Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity Project

MSIRI

2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Secretariat of the CBD 2000 Committee on Biosafety Legislation on GMO is set

up as a result of the National Biosafety Guidelines prepared for the National Biosafety Framework in Mauritius.

MoAFTNR

2000 A draft discussion paper entitled Agricultural biotechnology strategy of Mauritius: A re-appraisal and renewal process is circulated to the MoAFTNR7 and other bodies to start a consultation process with the aim of updating and defining (with consensus) the new strategy for agricultural biotechnology in Mauritius

FARC

2000 National Biotechnology Committee set up MoAFTNR 2000 Work on GMO Bill gathering momentum MoAFTNR 2001 MoAFTNR Committee on GMO Bill MoAFTNR 2001 MoAFTNR’s decision to join UPOV GM 2002 Mauritius ratifies the Cartagena Protocol MoAFTNR 2002 GMO Bill finalised MoAFTNR 2002 Announcement of the setting up of the MABI MoAFTNR 2002 Setting up of MABI is approved by the GM GM 2002 Advisory committee on biotechnology and biosafety Council of Ministers of Food,

Agriculture and Natural Resources of the SADC

2003 Cartagena Protocol comes into force CBD 2004 Enactment of the GMO Bill GM 2004 Proclamation of the first five clauses of the GMO Act GM 2004 Setting up of the National Biosafety Committee MoAFTNR 2004 Setting up of the National Focal Point to contribute to

the Biosafety Clearing House MoAFTNR

6 Government of Mauritius 7 Ministry of Agriculture, Food Technology and Natural Resources (now the Ministry of AgroIndustry and Fisheries)

towards a regional approach to biotechnology and biosafety ......biosafety framework by enacting...

Documents