AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF WEST AFRICAN AGRICULTURE:
Synthesis of the Regional Consultation
with West African actors
Sahel and West Africa Club Secretariat
(SWAC) / OECD
SAH/D(06)558 September 2006
Transformation du monde rural et Développement durable en Afrique de l’Ouest
Rural Transformation and Sustainable Development in West Africa
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY AND
THE TRANSFORMATION OF WEST AFRICAN AGRICULTURE:
Synthesis of the Regional Consultation with West African actors
Document produced by:
Dr. Jean Sibiri Zoundi (firstname.lastname@example.org),
Head of the Rural Transformation and Sustainable Development Unit,
Sahel and West Africa Club, OECD, Paris.
Mr. Léonidas Hitimana (email@example.com),
Agricultural Economist, Sahel and West Africa Club, OECD, Paris.
Mr. Karim Hussein (firstname.lastname@example.org),
Formerly Head of the Agricultural Transformation and Sustainable Development Unit,
(Currently Regional Economist, Western and Central Africa Division, IFAD, Rome)
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABBI African Biotechnology and Bio-safety Initiative
AOPP Association des Organisations Paysannes Professionnelles (Association of Peasant farmer‟s
APROCA Association des Producteurs de Coton Africains (African Cotton Producers‟ Association)
BBP Biotechnology and Bio-safety Programme
CERAAS Centre d’Etudes Régional pour l’Amélioration de l’Adaptation à la Sécheresse (Regional
Studies Centre for Improvement of Adaptation to the Drought)
CILSS Comité Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel (Permanent Inter-State
Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel)
CIRDES Centre International de Recherche-Développement de l’Elevage en zone Sub-humide
(Internal Centre for Livestock Research and Development in Sub-Humid Zones)
CSBS Comité Sahélien de Semences et Biosécurité (Sahelian Committee for Seeds and Bio-safety)
CSO Civil Society Organisation
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FARA The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
GEF Global Environment Facility
GMO Genetically Modified Organisms
ICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid and Tropics
IDRC International Development Research Centre
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
INERA Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA) – Environment and
Agricutural Research Institute -
IPR Institut Polytechnique Rural (the Rural Institute Polytechnique)
LBMA Laboratoire de Biologie Moléculaire Appliquée (Laboratory of Applied molecular biology)
LBV Laboratoire de Biotechnologie Végétale (Laboratory of Plant Biotechnology)
LMO Living Modified Organisms
LVir Laboratoire de virologie, INERA, Burkina Faso (Laboratory of virology)
MAHRH Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Hydraulique et des Ressources Halieutiques (The ministry of
Agriculture, hydraulic and halieutic resources).
MECV Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie (The ministry of environment and life
MS Ministère de la Santé (The Health Ministry)
NAB National Authority for Bio-safety
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
PO Producer Organisation
RECAO Réseau des Chambres d’Agriculture d’Afrique de l’Ouest (Network of West African Chambers
ROPPA Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles d’Afrique de l’Ouest (West
African Network of Farmers‟ Organisations and Agricultural Producers)
SWAC Sahel and West Africa Club
TRIP Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
UNEP United Nations of Environmental Programme
UPOV Union pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales (International Union for the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants)
WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union
WARDA West African Rice Development Association
WECARD West and Central African Council for Agriculture and Development
WTO World Trade Organisation
Table of contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ 5
I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATION .................................... 9
1.1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.2 OBJECTIVES, APPROACH AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS ............................................................................... 9
1.3 WHAT IS MEANT BY BIOTECHNOLOGY? .............................................................................................. 11
II. OPPORTUNITIES REALATED TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ............................. 12
2.1 STAKES RELATED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN WEST AFRICA..... 12
2.2 ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS AND IMPROVEMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY ........................... 14
III. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LMOS ................................. 14
3.1 ACTORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF RISK.......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 THE LACK OF INFORMATION POLICY AND IMPARTIAL COMMUNICATION ON LMOS............................ 16
3.3 RISK MINIMISATION STRATEGIES........................................................................................................ 17
IV. CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO THE ACCESS TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY ... 18
V. CONDITIONS AND APPROACH FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN WEST AFRICA ............................................................................................ 19
VI. THE NEED FOR REGIONAL REGULATION IN THE PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 20
VII. OUTSTANDING ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX 1. TABLE OF COLLECTED INFORMATION ........................................................................ 23
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED ................................................ 25
I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATION
Since 2002, the Sahel and West Africa Club has initiated a series of strategic thinking consultations with
regional actors on the transformation of West African agriculture. Several documents were produced and
are being used to foster debates (www.oecd.org/sah/agritransformation) with all actors concerned. The key
question guiding the SWAC’s work is the following:
How and where will the 430 million West Africans live in 2020, given that there were
approximately 290 million inhabitants in 2003?
In this context, agricultural innovation and the access by family farms to new technologies are essential to
meet this challenge and be used as the basis for improving efficiency, productivity and value-added in
agriculture. Hence, some of the strategic questions stemming from these observations are the following:
What impact will these major changes and high population growth have on West African
agriculture? What role will agriculture play in the region‟s medium- and long-term development?
What role can agricultural innovation play in this process? What are the relationships between
the process of agricultural innovation and changes in societal models?
The consultation held with regional actors on the agricultural innovation process led to the organisation of
a regional workshop in June 2004 at the WAEMU headquarters. During the workshop, a network of non-
governmental actors, agricultural departments and regional organisations was set up to address the issue of
access to agricultural innovations. The actors concerned identified the issue of access to agricultural
biotechnology as a theme that should be part of future strategic thinking within the network.
The ministerial meeting on biotechnology organised by ECOWAS in June 2005, with the aim of
establishing a joint regional framework for agricultural biotechnology, was an important turning point in
the introduction of biotechnology in West Africa. Following consultations between the SWAC,
ECOWAS, and certain development experts and development partners in the north, it was deemed useful
for the SWAC to initiate consultations with the network of actors on access to agricultural innovation in
order to broaden and deepen the perception of the different actors – particularly non-governmental actors,
producers’ organisations and civil society – as regards the stakes linked to the introduction of
1.2 Objectives, approach and expected outputs
The objectives and expected results from this consultation are as follows:
o To engage West African non-governmental actors and civil society in an impartial and informed
debate on the stakes associated with agricultural biotechnology;
o To inform and consult civil society regarding the regulatory and security measures related to
biotechnology and the necessary precaution for biodiversity and the preservation of the species
and genes of local varieties;
o To further examine socio-economic and fairness aspects in greater detail with regard to the most
vulnerable producers, as well as to address fears related to long-term dependency of producers on
international companies, particularly for seed procurement;
o To identify the possible winners and losers as regards biotechnology in order to institute
appropriate safety measures.
This initiative contributes to a consultation process and analyses already underway since 2000. Its aim is
to complement strategic thinking undertaken at other West African meetings related to this subject that
have been held in the region over the last few years, including the following:
o The project supported by the United Nations Environment Program/Global Environment Facility
(UNEP/GEF) aiming to strengthen capacities of countries with regard to bio-safety, in accordance
with the Cartagena Protocol adopted in 2000;
o The CORAF/WECARD1 biotechnology and bio-safety project which has been an objective to
promote capacity building in countries in this field;
o The African Agricultural Research Forum’s (FARA - Forum Africain pour la Recherche Agricole)
initiative “African Biotechnology and Bio-safety Initiative – FARA-ABBI2”, of which the aim is
to strengthen capacities as regards biotechnology and bio-safety and promote joint bio-safety
regulations within the African region;
o The ministerial conference on “science and technology for increasing agricultural productivity in
West Africa” held in June 2004 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso;
o The West African Science and Technology Ministers’ Conference organised by ECOWAS in
November 2004 in Abuja, Nigeria;
o The initiative of the Permanent Inter-State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS -
Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel) to set up a joint
regulatory framework on bio-safety and conventional and transgenic seeds within the CILSS3
o The strategic thinking workshop bringing together experts and civil society actors, organised by
the International Research Development Centre (IDRC) in November 2004 in Dakar, Senegal.
This consultation included a wide range of actors, such as: biotechnology or bio-safety researchers,
agricultural department officers, producers and farmers organisations (POs), private sector and
development actors, policy decision-makers, civil society organisations (CSOs), regional political
institutions (appendix 2: List of persons and institutions consulted).
The approach to data collection combined several methods, including direct interviews with key contacts
in West Africa, electronic consultations and telephone discussions. These consultations were built around
five key questions for discussion (appendix 1):
CORAF/WECARD, 2004. CORAF/WECARD Project Proposal on Biotechnology and Bio-safety. Final Version.
CORAF/WECARD, Dakar, Senegal, 87 p.
FARA, 2005. The FARA-Led African Biotechnology and Bio-safety Initiative (FARA – ABBI). Paper for discussion during
the 3rd FARA General Assembly, 6-12, June 2005, Entebbe, Uganda. FARA, Accra, Ghana, 14 p.
FARA, 2005. Consultations with Sub-Regional Organizations and key Biotechnology and Bio-safety Players in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Report presented to the FARA Biotechnology and Bio-safety Task Force. 3rd FARA General Assembly,
6-12 June 2005, Entebbe, Uganda. FARA, Accra, Ghana, 19 p.
CILSS, 2005. Biotechnology/Bio-safety: Framework agreement instituting joint regulations on conventional and transgenic
seeds in the CILSS region, Provisional document, INSAH/CILSS, Bamako, 27 p
CILSS, 2005. Biotechnology/Bio-safety: Draft framework agreement instituting joint regulations on bio-safety in the CILSS
region, Provisional document, INSAH/CILSS, Bamako, 37 p.
CILSS, 2005. Biotechnology/Bio-safety: Structure and functioning of the Sahel Seeds and Bio-safety Committee (CSBS -
Comité Sahélien des Semences et Biosécurité), Provisional document, INSAH/CLISS, Bamako, 42 p.
(i) Risks and opportunities associated with the introduction of biotechnology;
(ii) Constraints linked to the access to agricultural biotechnology;
(iii) Approaches to be promoted regarding the dissemination of agricultural biotechnology;
(iv) Mechanisms to be promoted at regional level regarding regulations on the introduction of
(v) Real capacities of national or regional organisations in playing a regulatory role related to the
introduction of agricultural biotechnology.
1.3 What is meant by biotechnology4?
Biotechnology involves technical tools that stem from scientific progress and that have several
applications: in plant production, animal husbandry, health and food processing.
Traditional or conventional biotechnological processes have been used for centuries in our societies,
including, among others, for beer brewing and milk fermentation.
Modern biotechnology uses modern techniques that include tissue culture, marker assisted selection and
Tissue culture is an interface between modern and conventional biotechnology. It involves using pure and
healthy cell or tissue cultures to regenerate new products. In some cases, this process has been used to
produce potato seeds, for example in IPR-Katibougou in Mali, or for the in vitro preservation of certain
Marker assisted selection is based on the notion that it may be possible to deduce the presence of a gene
from the presence of a marker that is closely linked to this gene. This technique helps accelerate selection
programmes and uses the genetic code as the basis for the expression of different features in organisms.
For instance, IITA, based in Ibadan, Nigeria, uses this technique to develop mosaic-resistant tapioca
Genetic engineering, through transgenesis, is the direct introduction of one or several genes from other
organisms to another. Transgenesis involves introducing a gene (or a restricted number of genes) to one
organism from another organism through a method other than sexual reproduction. The process is used to
give the plant or animal a positive characteristic (higher yield, pest resistance, etc.) or to eliminate
When this technique is applied to plant or animal production, a living modified organism (LMO) can be
produced. Any living organism (micro-organism, plant or animal) whose gene pool has been changed
through the insertion or modification of one of its genes is called an LMO. As DNA is the medium for
heredity, this modification is transmitted to the progeny.
Although theoretically, agricultural biotechnology may offer many opportunities and important potential
for West African agriculture, they also raise questions in the minds of a large section of the public in West
Africa as well as in developed countries, notably as regards human and animal health, and socio-
economic, cultural and ethical aspects, etc.
This consultation aims to stimulate strategic thinking and actions related to the stakes involved in the
introduction of modern biotechnology for the transformation of agriculture in West Africa.
These definitions are taken from: Hitimana, L. and Hussein, K., Experiences of Agricultural Biotechnology: what stakes for
West Africa, SWAC/OECD, Paris, September 2006
II. OPPORTUNITIES REALATED TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
2.1 Stakes related to the introduction of agricultural biotechnology in West Africa
While the issue of opportunities provided by modern biotechnology has been broached, the actors
involved have focused their analysis on the risks involved in the introduction of living modified
organisms (LMOs) – the subject of intense debates.
The CORAF/WECARD planning process points towards a number of expectations as regards modern
technologies for the resolution of concerns related to plant and animal disease control, improvements in
product quality, crop resistance to certain pests and gene conservation. The main constraints agricultural
biotechnology should overcome in West Africa are particularly :
The resistance to bacteria, fungus and viruses, as well as abiotic stress resistance (drought, heat,
acidic or saline soil, etc.)
The herbicide tolerance
The resistance to insect pests.
The use of modern biotechnology is still at an embryonic stage in the West African region, particularly in
the case of genetic manipulation. The tools generally used involve micropropagation (in vitro
propagation), as is the case in Mali. This technique has enabled substantial time savings and increased
efficiency and quality in the production of potato seeds in IPR/Katibougou.
Actors consulted believe that the potential advantages of modern biotechnology are based on three pillars:
(i) Disease and insect control
(ii) Adaptation to environmental stresses and reduction of environmental damage
(iii) Increase in productivity and in the price/quality ratio.
Several types of vaccines can be produced with modern biotechnological tools, including vaccines for the
control of animal trypanosomes. For crops, the opportunities that are most positively viewed relate to the
creation of disease or pest-resistant material. In Burkina Faso for instance, the development of BT cotton
is a natural method for plants to be resistant to certain diseases and pests.
The Bt cotton has been a success story for family farms in South Africa, in China and India as shown in
Box 1: Biotechnology cotton: a success story for poor farmers with possible risks over the medium- and long-term
Cotton genetically engineered to express the insecticidal toxin Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt cotton) has been celebrated
as a success story for poor farmers in developing countries. Transgenic cotton varieties have been adopted by
commercial and smallholder farmers in several developing countries including China, South Africa and India. In
2002, transgenic cotton varieties occupied 20% of the global cotton area and more than half of the national cotton
acreage in China. An estimated 90% of smallholder cotton farmers in the Makhatini Flats area of KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa planted Bt cotton.
Transgenic technology is popular with farmers because it appears to provide effective control of important cotton
pests, principally bollworms. Consequently it has been rapidly adopted and it is now possible to review the
experiences of transgenic cotton farmers over several growing seasons. A number of recent studies have claimed that
there are clear benefits for cotton farmers. In China, transgenic cotton commercialised in 1997 is reported to have
contributed to increased yields, financial and labour savings and a reduction in poisonings linked to pesticide use.
The total benefits were calculated at US$334 million nationally, most of which was secured by farmers. In South
Africa, the reportedly higher cost of transgenic cotton seed commercialised in 1997 was offset by lower chemical use
and yield increases in the order of 20 to 40%.
However, the experience of India serves as a reminder that the Bt gene cannot protect cotton against diseases or non-
targeted pests which can wipe out profit margins. Paying the higher price for transgenic seeds remains a risky choice
especially for poor-cash producers constrained to produce primarily for home consumption. Research in China has
indicated that as the primary pest, controlling the bollworm, successfully may lead to the increase in secondary pests
such as aphids and red spider mites. The particular ecological dynamics of cotton pests requires dynamic, ongoing
management. There is concern in both China and India that pest resistance to the Bt toxin may already be emerging.
According to IDEAS Centre (www.ideascentre.ch ), there is some data indicating the development of pest resistance
after extended exposure to Bt cotton. The risks can be mitigated and reduced with proper crop management practices
such as intermittent planting of non-Bt varieties in order to break the selection process in pests that favours Bt-
resistant species. Pest refuges are recommended as a way of controlling this problem but these may be unworkable or
ineffective on the tiny plots of land farmed by smallholders. Non-Bt maize is a key refuge crop in China’s Bt cotton
growing areas. Policymakers fear that, if Bt maize were commercialised in the north-eastern provinces, seed would
quickly travel south and be used in the cotton zones. Having Bt maize and Bt cotton in the same zones could
undermine bio-safety principals in smaller farms. Furthermore, for crops where China is a centre of origin – rice
and soya beans, for example – biodiversity concerns cannot be taken lightly.
These specific crop management processes are relatively easy to implement and manage on large farms. On
smallholdings, however, the respective practices require co-ordinated action among all producers within defined
areas of production. This is a significant issue in Africa where the majority of farms are small family farms, often
less than 3 hectares in size. Producer organisations may have a key role to play here.
Access to agricultural inputs remains an important issue. In India and South Africa, the smallholders adopting
transgenic varieties tend to be the richer and better-established farmers who have access to productive land and credit
and can afford the higher up-front costs of transgenic cotton-seed. In many countries, cotton is an important export
crop that is supported by an infrastructure of input supply and marketing. In this respect access to input and
agricultural biotechnology need to be addressed.
Source: Institute of Development Studies, UK (http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/pubsBrifings.html
and IDEAS Centre (www.ideascentre.ch)
2.2 Adaptation to environmental stress and improvement of productivity
According to many actors, genetic engineering in the Sahel could initially be aimed at the creation of
drought-resistant woody species to enable the use of millions of hectares of wild land. It could also play a
role in reducing the use of polluting chemical pesticides.
The first results of the Bt cotton experiment in Burkina Faso were a reduction in insecticide use. The
recent introduction of cotton in the country’s eastern region has affected apiarian production on the whole
due to the effect of chemical treatments on bees, and many actors believe that the use of Bt cotton could
provide a solution to this problem, although nothing has been verified so far in this field.
Nonetheless, it is hoped that the use of products stemming from genetic engineering will lead to an
increase in productivity, which will in turn contribute to the reduction in the intensity of human pressure
on land. Furthermore, in some cases, the use of living modified organisms has led to changes in cropping
practices, tending towards the simplification of tillage operations. Thus, the glyphosate resistance induced
by genetic engineering in soybean crops has led to a 30% saving in the ploughing stage. The following
two examples cited by actors who were consulted illustrate biotechnology’s role in the improvement of
BT cotton, as compared to conventional cotton, will lead to reducing production costs as well as
increasing yields (33% in the case of Bt cotton without insecticide treatments in Burkina Faso)5.
Such improvements are an important stake for the future, as there is not yet a price difference
(apart from organic cotton) between transgenic and conventional cotton.
The improvement in the milk yields of local cows has been mentioned as an economic and
strategic stake for West African countries, given the volume of dairy product imports in West
Africa. For instance, Burkina Faso itself spends almost annually CFA F 9-12 billion on dairy
product imports, despite the size of its own cattle livestock, estimated at over 7 million heads.
III. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LMOS
3.1 Actors’ perceptions of risk
A highly polarised debate has been sparked in West Africa with regard to the concerns of different actors,
especially producers and CSOs, about the potential risks associated with the use of modern biotechnology.
These concerns are essentially:
regulatory, political and strategic constraints,
risks related to human health,
At the socio-economic level, access to seeds for the most vulnerable producers is one of the major risks.
The fact that farmers would not be able to re-use the same seeds is in itself a radical change within
production systems which must be given due consideration. In the absence of an appropriate policy that
recognises family farming constraints, the high costs of seeds produced by biotechnology as compared to
conventional seeds might seriously compromise access for all producer categories.
Boly H., Traoré O., Ouédraogo J., 2005. Coton transgénique au Burkina et perspectives. INERA, Burkina Faso, 30 p.
At the regulatory, political and strategic level, the introduction of modern biotechnology and genetic
engineering in West Africa raises the fundamental issue of intellectual property and the patentability
rights of living organisms for both producers and civil society organisations. They believe that this issue
will be at the centre of trade regulations, since LMOs are being produced and marketed by private research
facilities (firms such as Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.). The fears expressed by civil society actors reflect the
objectives of the Agreement on Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) within the
WTO framework. The CORAF/WECARD–BBP document clearly mentions that henceforth, the issue of
intellectual property rights should be considered as a major factor in agricultural research in light of the
rapid growth in private investment in agriculture.
Along the same lines, some organisations such as the FAO suggest that the recognition of producers’
rights as owners of the local gene pool be taken into account by the International Union for the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants. Both farmers and CSOs are of the view that if the intellectual property rights
issue is not taken seriously, it may deprive producers of their right over living organisms and thereby
compromise the access of vulnerable producers to seeds.
There is a convergence on one issue between actors who support LMOs and those who oppose them: West
African agriculture runs the risk of becoming dependent on seed companies based in developed
countries. This dependence could strongly compromise the objective of “food sovereignty” (box 2).
Box 2. LMOs and food sovereignty in West Africa
The food sovereignty philosophy was designed by the farmers who launched the “Via Campesina” world
movement6. Most West African farmers’ organisations widely adopted it both at country and regional organisation
level, such as ROPPA. The concept of “food sovereignty” was made public for the first time during the 1996 World
Food Summit. Food sovereignty is “the responsibility and RIGHT of all countries or groups of countries to form and
develop their own agricultural and food policies (including the right to develop protective measures for processed
products), while abstaining from „Dumping‟ 7 in third countries8” (definition as set out by the Farmers
Confederation of Faso [Conféderation Paysanne du Faso – CFP).
Each country or group of countries has the right and duty to establish a food policy that gives priority to local
agricultural production to feed the people, and producers’ access to land, water, seeds and credit. With the
development of biotechnology, two key factors are taken into account in order to avoid compromising the attainment
of this food security objective:
(i) Intellectual property rights related to LMOs, in particular for food crops such as maize, manioc, potatoes,
sorghum and millet;
(ii) Limited research capacities within the States. This aspect is particularly important in order to broach the
dependence issue from international seed production firms.
These farmers’ risks of dependency on foreign seed companies require consistent policy response assuring access to
seeds and other inputs needed for agricultural products stemming from modern biotechnology. For the moment, there
is no clear response to this question. In West Africa, seeds are considered basic inputs and form the basis of food
security and a means of survival for millions of family farmers, hence their strategic importance.
The question raised by actors is whether food sovereignty can really be promoted by forcing farmers to use seeds
(both plant and animal) whose production and distribution chain is not under their country’s control. Debates on
LMOs and food security between authorities, producers and CSOs focus on political and strategic issues.
At the environmental level, one of the main fears is that of genetic contamination through the transfer of
modified genes to local primary strains. Drawing lessons from concrete examples of contamination
observed on other continents, actors greatly fear a loss of biodiversity and, especially, the disorganisation
of the ecosystem and the disappearance of the local gene pool over time. Furthermore, the transfer of
Campesina, 2002. Farmers’ alternative to neo-liberal globalisation. Via Campesina, 256 p.
“Dumping”: A policy that involves exporting a product at a lower price than the cost of production made possible in
particular through subsidies paid to producers or exporters, etc.
Pour plus de détails, voir : http://www.abcburkina.net/vu_vu/fr3_vu_4.htm
resistance genes to certain insects from plants can also prove dangerous for useful insects that are not
specifically targeted, but whose destruction would lead to an ecological imbalance. This is particularly
true of bees, whose role is vital in pollination for the reproduction of plant species.
As regards human health, many actors are quick to make the link between the upsurge in carcinogenic
diseases and the development of LMOs. Both producers and consumers frequently raiise the possible
long-term effects of LMOs on health and believe that certain cases of allergies are associated with the
consumption of LMOs. Thus, they fear:
o The development of resistance to antibiotics due to the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to
digestive tract micro-organisms;
o The possibility of an excess production of (naturally present) toxins in transgenic plants, harmful
to humans: solanine in potatoes, tomatine in tomatoes or erucic acid in rapeseed.
As regards ethics, the main concern is related to the breaking of inter-specific and inter-species barriers
as a result of genetic engineering products. Often cited in religious circles, this concern essentially raises
the issue of the mobility of genes between the animal and plant kingdoms.
3.2 The lack of information policy and impartial communication on LMOs
The general observations made by the actors consulted relate to the lack of impartial information policy
and an informed debate enabling all actors – civil society and producers in particular – to obtain the most
accurate information possible on the advantages and risks of living modified organisms and thereby, take
appropriate decisions. Such an environment has led to “the fear of the unknown” in many situations.
To address this gap the Association of Professional Farmers’ Organisations (AOPP – Association des
Organisations Paysannes Professionnelles) in Mali developed its own information system for its members
on the dangers that LMOs represent (box 3).
Box 3: “Bayala Mashi” or “seed whose nature has been transformed” – A farmers’ initiative to inform producers
as regards LMOs in Mali
With the support of NGOs in developed countries, the AOPP initiated a massive information campaign concerning
LMO-related risks for Malian producers. The initiative consisted in producing an audio-cassette of a talk on the risks
and dangers of LMOs, called “Bayala Mashi” in Bambana – or, literally, “seed whose nature has been transformed”
– . The 30-minute cassette, produced in the main languages (Bambana, French, Sarakole, Fulfulde), discusses issues
associated with biotechnology. The subjects broached in this informative discourse concern: the definition of LMOs,
the risks they represent, giving concrete examples, as well as proposals on how producers should be organised.
Since 2003, about 20,000 copies of the audio-cassette have been distributed free of charge, either directly to
communities or through local radio stations. The investment cost rose to about CFA F 10 million.
The AOPP hopes to use this information campaign to enlighten the maximum number of producers as regards the
risks involved so that they can take a responsible stand. However, it should be noted that it is the risks, rather than
the potential benefits of LMOs, that are particularly emphasised.
The other reality expressed by the actors consulted is that the lack of a clear information policy has
reinforced the conviction that the authorities are being pressured by the multinationals producing and
marketing LMOs. On their part, the CSOs too have improved their information systems, which focus on
the dangers associated with the use of LMOs.
This situation underlines the relevance of the recommendations made during the sub-regional conference
for West Africa held in June 2004 in Burkina Faso or during the workshop organised by the IDRC for
discussions between actors in November 2004 on the need for countries to develop a public information
system on biotechnology. It also points to the relevance of the actions envisaged within the
CORAF /WECARD–BBP, FARA-ABBI or CILSS framework (framework convention for common bio-
safety regulations in the CILSS region), so as to intensify communications for greater awareness and
information for the greater public. This was effectively a contribution to the decision capacity of actors on
the issues of biotechnology in compliance with the provisions in Article 22 of the Cartagena Protocol9.
3.3 Risk minimisation strategies
As regards the concerns expressed on potential risks, some strategies were proposed. These were based
on the following four points:
(i) The principle of caution
(ii) Bio-safety mechanisms
(iii) National and regional scientific capacity-building and
(iv) An information and communication policy.
Applying the precautionary principle
Caution is the Cartagena Protocol’s guiding principle. This principle is based on the fact that
experimentation on transgenic plants even on a small scale does not preclude the sudden emergence of
ecological effects (which may not have appeared in preceding stages, notably in greenhouses and
laboratories) when these experiments are disseminated on a large scale. The combination of genetic
material used to create LMOs amounts to a technological break from conventional selection methods and
this technological innovation may beget an uncertain universe for which the consequences are
For some civil society actors, the application of the cautionary principle should be translated into a
moratorium on the introduction, use and experimentation of LMOs in order to enable a much broader
public debate and strengthen technical, institutional and legislative expertise.
For others, a moratorium totally banning the research on LMOs would be a means of encouraging fraud
and clandestine research, while the true challenge today is to open a real transparent and informed debate
on the research conducted within the African context. For this reason, actors believe that the research
should lead to investigations, without moratorium or even in cases where a moratorium is agreed, in order
to provide scientific information related to the strengths and potentials of LMOs.
Establishing national and regional bio-safety mechanisms
In accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Cartagena Protocol, all the signatory countries must
set up national legislative frameworks as regards bio-safety, which should be harmonised at the regional
level. Several actors believe that it is necessary to implement a health monitoring mechanism in LMO
production and consumption areas, a regional risk-assessment observatory as well as a system for handling
ethical issues, by establishing the framework and limitations of transgenesis.
Providing national and regional facilities with the necessary scientific capacities
First and foremost, the necessary scientific capacities should be developed for a better command over
modern biotechnology. Such national and regional capacities should also be drawn upon to conduct
research on the risks and advantages associated with the introduction of modern biotechnology and LMOs
For more information on the Cartagena Protocol, consult the following Internet sites: http://www.unep.org and
Developing and implementing information and communication policies
Currently there is a gap as regards informing the general public. The main challenge identified by the
actors consulted relates to the implementation of essential impartial information policies for political
decision-makers and other interested actors on the biotechnology issue (See section 3.2).
IV. CONSTRAINTS RELATED TO THE ACCESS TO AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
On the basis of prospective strategic thinking, different actors pointed out a certain number of factors
that could impede access to modern biotechnology. These are based on the lack of technical skills and the
fact that agricultural services lack the necessary ability to play their role, for want of financial and human
resources as well as other socio-economic factors.
Socio-economic constraints are essentially related to the purchase cost of LMO seeds, but also the long-
term dependence of producers on a production and distribution chain of these seeds, which would not
necessarily be under their control. In fact, LMO product development requires significant financial means.
This constraint explains in part why the production and marketing of LMO seeds are often controlled by
large agro-industrial, often international, businesses. In most cases, the use of LMO seeds is accompanied
by other specific inputs of which producers and organisations cannot easily access (product availability,
high cost of inputs, access to credit by family farms). Thus, the case of the most vulnerable producers
deserves special attention as regards their economic and social conditions vis-à-vis the use of LMO
The constraints that could limit the access of this category of producers to modern biotechnology are the
o The cost of access to seeds as well as the impossibility to regenerate seeds due to intellectual
property rights. Some producers assert that “in difficult years – drought years, for instance – these
vulnerable groups sometimes eat their stock of seeds due to the famine conditions, only to build it
up again the following year. This would not be possible with LMO seeds, and this would affect the
ability of these vulnerable producers ability to adapt themselves to environmental risks”.
o Difficulties concerning their command over LMO seed usage techniques and in their access to
the factors needed for to apply the accompanying technical processes. In effect the research and
extension structures lack the specialised frameworks in order to support producers in the use of
products stemming from agricultural biotechnology. The use of such products requires
approaches and appropriate tools as regards research-development and extension for which neither
the researchers, nor the extension agents have for the moment. Many actors are thus currently
concerned as regards the extension capacity to correctly assume their role – especially in the
current context characterised by the reduction of State expenditure and the visible consequences as
regards the reduction of the number of extension/support agents. Even the classical functions
related to conventional extension products are not accurately assured – How can the situation be
expected to be better with these new LMOs which require more attention, training, information
and skills for extension services to be able to use and manipulate them properly?
o The fear that the loss of biodiversity with the gradual disappearance of the local gene pool.
Producers state that the use of LMOs over time will affect the capacity to diversify which is
nevertheless a significant means to manage risks and would affect diversification abilities in the
long run, although diversification is one of the main ways in which family farms can disperse or
V. CONDITIONS AND APPROACH FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN WEST AFRICA
In addressing the issue of intellectual property rights increasing the cost of access to biotechnology,
certain NGOs, such as Winrock International, in partnership with other development partners, are
currently implementing initiatives which would allow “small producers” access to LMO seeds at
affordable prices. Among the proposals for improving producer access to biotechnology put forward by
the actors consulted were:
o Finding solutions to obstacles limiting free producer access to LMO seeds in at least two of the
following aspects: (a) resolving intellectual property issues (for example, according due value
to producers’ rights on the varieties and local knowledge), (b) developing endogenous
capacities at the national and regional levels for sovereignty as regards mastering modern
agricultural biotechnology and producing LMOs;
o Promoting information and training for producers, other civil society actors, and political
decision-makers by opening “a frank, informed and impartial debate on this issue and allowing
producers to contribute to decisions after evaluating the risks and advantages”. The importance
of such a debate is outlined in box 4 below;
o Encouraging and improving the performance of public and private agricultural support and
advice structures. This objective can only be attained if these services are run by those
qualified and trained in modern agricultural biotechnology. Using the appropriate
communications tools is also a necessary prerequisite for the dissemination of biotechnology.
o A more thorough investigation of the risks involved in using agricultural biotechnology,
particularly with regard to the environment, biodiversity and human health.
Box 4 illustrates that availability of information is one of the factors behind the divergence of opinion
regarding the introduction of LMOs in West Africa.
Box 4: Lack of communication and information on LMOs
Several of the actors consulted feel that the approach used in several West African countries has not taken sufficient
account of the opinion of producers and other civil society actors. The producers surmise that public authorities,
under pressure from foreign multinational companies and some bilateral and multilateral development partners, are
seeking to impose products for which no one yet has full knowledge!
An atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust has thus been created in several West African countries between the
political authorities and producers and other civil society actors. In some cases, the debate between different groups
of actors has become increasingly polarised due to the following concern: Why should we bow to pressure from
companies marketing these modern biotechnological products by introducing LMOs when the risks involved, and
issues of intellectual property, are not yet clarified?
As regards these concerns, the following questions are raised by producers: Are West African countries capable of
developing their own expertise with regard to modern biotechnology by following China‟s example? Would a blind
introduction of LMOs without resolving these issues in advance be a danger to “food sovereignty”?
Even though modern biotechnology seems to be a new sector, actors recognise the need for producers to
become skilled in seed production. Producer capabilities must be strengthened in order to create proper
production and distribution circuits for these agricultural biotechnology products. Proposals put
forward include the following:
o Developing seed production and marketing systems based on national and/or regional
o Strengthening communities’ ability to create networks of professional seed producers specialising
in these new products;
o Negotiating a win-win partnership between producers and public and political authorities (both
national and regional) and private companies in order to create and develop seed networks while
taking into account intellectual property rights of local communities.
As regards the development of tools and approaches for better use of LMOs by the most vulnerable
producers, many actors expressed the view that the “see and choose” principle should be adopted. This
principle requires not only an approach built around professional producers’ organisations, but also the
development of demonstration tools and practical apprenticeships. Furthermore, setting up a support
policy for this category of actors to have access to seeds and other factors accompanying the use of
modern biotechnology products as well as the development of operational management mechanisms of
risks incurred by producers was underscored.
VI. THE NEED FOR REGIONAL REGULATION IN THE PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL
Efforts are underway to strengthen national capabilities as regards bio-safety. All of these actions are in
line with the measures set out in the Cartagena Protocol (Article 19) and are currently supported by the
UNEP/GEF project, bilateral partners and certain CSOs. In some countries like Burkina Faso10 for
example, national regulations concerning biotechnology safety have been drawn up and a national bio-
safety agency (ANB) has been created.
However, notwithstanding political declarations and the adoption of protocols as regards bio-safety, many
actors express doubts over nationwide capabilities in individual countries to contribute to the
development of modern biotechnology, and more particularly to ensure the necessary level of
monitoring under bio-safety provisions. Their concerns are expressed in the following terms:
“We are certain that the production and use of LMOs, and regulatory control with regard to bio-safety, will require
considerable qualified personnel, laboratory facilities and significant financial resources. We note that with
traditional research, sustained financial support has always been a problem, and more than 90% of the money
directed into research comes from foreign partners. How can we not conclude that where modern biotechnology is
concerned, the situation will become ever more problematic? There is, therefore, very little room for manoeuvre
where the sovereignty of individual nations is concerned and we are entitled to express serious doubts at this level.”
Proposed coordination between the national and regional levels is as follows:
(i) At the national level it has been recommended to create national focal points who would have three
functions as regards, the regulation of bio-safety:
o Provide information and improve national actors’ capacities;
o Coordinate, at the national level, monitoring and follow-up of the regulations drawn up at regional
o Function as a focal point of the regional regulation body.
(ii) At the regional level, regulatory measures should enable, among others:
o Defining and improved coordination of policies relating to the development and regulation as
regards the introduction of biotechnology;
o Strengthening technical and scientific skills of national actors; and
o Advising decision-makers in order for decisions to be made at the regional level.
Burkina Faso, 2004. National rules on security in biotechnology (Decree no.2004-262/PRES/PM/MECV/MAHRH/MS, 18
June 2004). Burkina Faso.
The need to strengthen organisations and regional structures’ modern biotechnological expertise in order
to offset the deficiencies or lack of human resources, laboratories and other research infrastructures at
national and regional level is also being underlined. This process would be based on the principle of
capitalising on comparative advantages concerning national, regional and international research and
development organisations. The most significant concrete action at the regional level calls for the
identification and improvement of national scientific structures’ capacities (laboratories) which would
then have regional responsibilities. This proposal is already incorporated into the CILSS initiative, and a
number of laboratories which could operate with a regional mandate have already been identified, as
shown in Table 1 below.
It is essential that producers and other civil society actors are represented within these regional structures
that are regulating the introduction of modern biotechnology. Such concerns are largely addressed by the
CILSS initiative and the establishment of the Comité Sahélien des Semences et Biosécurité (CSBS),
where regional actors will be represented. Particular attention has been given to the involvement of
producers, other civil society actors and the private sector through organisations such as the West African
Network of Farmers’ Organisations and Agricultural Producers (ROPPA), the Network of West African
Chambers of Agriculture (RECAO), the African Cotton Producers’ Association (APROCA), ROCARPA
and, for the private sector, the INTERFACE network. This approach involving the these organisations in
all of the debates and the decisions on modern biotechnology should enable trust between actors to be
Table 1: Specialist laboratories serving as a reference to
the framework of the Sahelian committee of seeds and bio-safety (CSBS)
Centres and Laboratories
CERAAS CIRDES LBMA Lvir LBV
Regional Centre for International Centre Applied Molecular Virology Plant
Improving for Research and Biology Laboratory, Laboratory, Biotechnology
Adaptation to Development of Bamako INERA, Burkina Laboratory, INERA,
Drought, Senegal Livestock Farming University Faso Burkina Faso
Facilities Required for work Required for work Required for work on Required for When completed to
on traceability and on traceability and traceability and impact work on work on traceability
impact analysis impact analysis analysis traceability and and impact
impact analysis analysis
Key area Drought Animal sciences Human health Plant virology Plant
Eventual role Centre of Centre of Centre of excellence Regional centre Centre of
excellence on excellence on on traceability and for phytosanitary excellence on
traceability and traceability and analysis of the impact standards and traceability and
analysis of the analysis of the of LMOs centre of analysis of the
impact of transgenic impact of LMOs excellence on impact of
crops (animal) traceability and transgenic crops
analysis of the
Needs To handle the costs To handle the costs To handle the Needs
relating to these relating to these costs relating to complementary
studies which will studies which will these studies equipment for
be controlled by the be controlled by the which will be traceability work.
CSBS or the CSBS or the controlled by the
countries countries CSBS or the To handle the
countries costs relating to
which will be
controlled by the
CSBS or the
From a technical perspective, national structures with a comparative advantage could be strengthened in
order to carry out regional missions. WECARD could play a significant role in the coordination of this
process in West and Central Africa.
From a political and institutional perspective, decision-making bodies (ministerial conferences, Heads of
State summits, etc.) are needed to provide the link between political and administrative procedures and
with civil society. This political institution would act as the regional coordinating body for technical
regulation. ECOWAS and the CILSS are the regional political organisations best placed to fulfil these
functions.. ECOWAS’ geographic coverage provides it a comparative advantage in West Africa.
The creation of regional centres of excellence based on the principles of complementarity and
comparative advantage. Creation of such centres was one of the recommendations made during recent
consultation on this subject, particularly the ministerial conference in Ouagadougou in June 2004 and the
ECOWAS meeting in November 2004. In the agricultural sector, this process of identifying and selecting
centres of excellence has already been done by the WAEMU and this should also provide the basis for
strengthening regional capabilities in modern biotechnology.
Regional integration and the implementation of a policy to develop human resources employed in
modern biotechnological disciplines, taking into account regional concerns. This is not a new concern,
having been expressed since the start of the development process of national research capacities following
independence, particularly through the notion of creating centres of excellence, bases and research sites.
With the development of modern biotechnology, the issue of regional integration as regards agricultural
research has come to the fore once again posing a challenge to national agricultural research systems
(SNRA) sub-regional organisations (OSR) and especially sub-regional political institutions (the CILSS,
the WAEMU, ECOWAS).
VII. OUTSTANDING ISSUES
This consultation of regional actors highlights the complexity of the issues surrounding the introduction of
modern biotechnology and LMOs, particularly in West Africa. Among the many questions raised by
actors during the consultation process, four merit particular attention:
1. What should be the level of government commitment and responsibility should governments have in
order to establish regional or national sovereignty, particularly in terms of scientific capacities in modern
biotechnology and LMOs in particular?
2. Could the introduction of LMOs provoke a social fracture in particular for the most vulnerable
agricultural family farms due to: (i) problems in accessing seeds, (ii) lack of basic agricultural services,
and (iii) risks of loss of biodiversity and control over local genetic resources, compromising their ability
to adapt? What agricultural support and advice mechanisms are to be promoted in order to respond to
demands linked to regulation and distribution of LMO products to producers?
3. How should the issues of intellectual property rights over living organisms related to access to LMOs
and to control genes originating in West Africa, so as to ensure that local communities do not lose out be
approached? What role could regional economci and policy integration organisations play in this area?
4. Are West African countries capable of developing their own expertise in modern biotechnology as
China has done? Could “food sovereignty” be endangered when introducing LMOs without regulations?
What can be expected from regional economic and policy integration organisations as regards this issue
in terms of commitment and sense of responsibility?
APPENDIX 1. TABLE OF COLLECTED INFORMATION
CONSULTATION WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS ON THE RISKS INVOLVED IN INTRODUCING
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN WEST AFRICA
Sahel and West Africa Club/OECD
Background and objectives of the consultation
The use of agricultural biotechnology in West Africa is a controversial subject which has given rise to intense debate.
This consultation aims to extend impartial and informed debate and thinking among the relevant actors in West
African agriculture, such as producers, extension workers, actors from civil society and the private sector, NGOs,
researchers, regional political decision-makers and certain development partners, regarding the risks involved in
applying agricultural biotechnology in West Africa.
The results of this consultation will complement the discussions taking place during the ECOWAS/USAID conference
on biotechnology in West Africa due to take place in summer 2005 in Bamako. Your comments are important in our
evaluation of the opinions of all actors.
This consultation focuses on five main questions or concerns.
I. In your opinion, what are the opportunities and risks involved in introducing agricultural
biotechnology in West Africa?
1.1 List the opportunities which the introduction of biotechnology represents for the transformation
of West African agriculture. If possible, give examples of the types of biotechnology with the
highest potential (e.g. livestock-related, crop-related). (Give a maximum of five key
1.2 What do you see as being the main risks (environmental, relating to human and animal health,
social or economic)? List a maximum of five key areas of risk, in order of decreasing
importance (1 = the most important).
1.3 State your concerns for each of the key risks you have listed (e.g. results of studies, rumours
1.4 What precautions should be taken in order to minimise the potential risks, particularly at
regional level? What should be the role of the various actors (e.g. regional organisations, POs,
II. What do you see as being the main obstacles in accessing agricultural biotechnology in
2.1 What are the limitations in terms of biotechnological knowledge and training for producers?
2.2 What are the limitations in terms of access to and use of seeds and property rights?
2.3 What specific limitations can you identify regarding access to biotechnology for family
smallholdings and vulnerable producers (the youth, women, migrants, etc.)?
III. What approaches should be adopted to broaden the application of agricultural
3.1 Which approaches would best accommodate the needs of producers in the furthering of
biotechnology and in the identification of priorities?
3.2 Which approaches deal more appropriately with the particular constraints faced by more
vulnerable producers? What additional measures should be taken in this regard?
IV. What structures should be put in place at regional level to regulate the application of
agricultural biotechnology in West Africa?
4.1 Which forms of regulation, which take account of the principles of biodiversity, bio-safety
(environmental and human safety) and fair access, would seem feasible in the West African
4.2 How could the principle of subsidiarity between national and regional structures be upheld?
State clearly how regulatory responsibilities should be divided between these two levels.
(i) Roles and responsibilities at national level:
(ii) Roles and responsibilities at regional level:
(iii) How should the activities or regional and national organisations be coordinated?
4.3 How can all actors, particularly producers, be involved in these regulatory bodies? (State how
this should be approached.)
4.4 Which strategies could be applied at regional and national level to evaluate health and
ecological risk which would respond to the concerns of producers and civil society?
4.5 What assessment would you give of the human capabilities (in terms of level of education and
training of scientists), financial and technical capacities (for example, laboratories) currently
available in West Africa in terms of their potential role in regulating biotechnology at national
and regional level? Would they be suitably effective? If not, why not?
4.6 Given that the application of biotechnology requires significant financial resources and an
extensive regulatory framework:
o Are West African countries sufficiently equipped for such a role?
o Are African countries sufficiently committed to developing, evaluating and promoting
national sovereign programmes in the field of biotechnology?
o Would efforts to develop such capacities regionally be an appropriate response to concerns
o How can we build a regional framework of our existing facilities and centres of
biotechnological expertise over the network of research centres across the West African
V. Which organisations or bodies (national or regional) are best placed to take on the role of
regulating the introduction of biotechnology in West Africa, and how would subsidiarity
apply between national and regional levels?
Name of organisation Why are they suitable? (Reasons or comparative advantages)
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED
Last name and First name Organisation Address
Association Nationale des ANOPACI, Côte d’Ivoire ANOPACI, E-mail : email@example.com
Agricoles de Côte d’Ivoire
Batta Fatoumata Voisins Mondiaux Regional coordinator Voisins Mondiaux
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org /
Bengaly M’Piè ESPGRN – IER, Sikasso, Mali ESPGRN-Sikasso, BP 186
Tél (223) 62 00 28 ; Fax (223) 620 349
Bikienga I. Martin Secrétaire Exécutif Adjoint Executive Secretary / CILSS
CILSS 03 BP 7049 Ouagadougou 03, Burkina Faso
Tel : + 226 50 37 41 25 poste 304
Fax : + 226 50 37 41 32
Mobile : + 226 70 26 07 58
E-mail : email@example.com /
Bitchibaly Kounkandji ESPGRN – IER, Sikasso, Mali ESPGRN-Sikasso, BP 186
Tél (223) 62 00 28, Fax (223) 620 349
Butaré Innocent CRDI, BRACO Bureau Régional pour l’Afrique occidentale et centrale,
BP 11007, CD Annexe Dakar
Tel : +221 864 00 00 ; Fax : +221 825 32 55
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Coulibaly Ibrahim CNOP – Mali S/C AOPP, Tél (223) 228 67 81, Tel Mobile : 676 1126
E-mail: email@example.com ou firstname.lastname@example.org
Coulibaly N’Golo ESPGRN – IER, Sikasso, Mali Sociologue ESPGRN / Sikasso, BP 186,
Tél. (223)260028, Cel. 6382986
E-mail : Ngolo.email@example.com
Diatta Malaïny Conseiller agricole présidence Tel : +221 864 51 01 ; Fax : +221 864 51 02
République du Sénégal Tel (Gsm) : +221 566 31 40
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Dioh Simon INTERFACE, Sénégal BP 21300 Dakar Ponty, Sénégal
Tel : 221 – 638 25 82 ; E-mail : email@example.com
Diouf Omar CERAAS, Sénégal Ecophysiologiste, Isra-Ceraas/Coraf BP 3320 Thiès
Escale, Thiès Sénégal
Tel : +221 951 49 93 ou 94 ; Fax : +221 951 49 95
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
Eklu Daniel Directeur Agriculture CEDEAO CEDEAO, Abjua Nigeria, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Feppa-Si Fédération Provinciale des Fédération Provinciale des Producteurs Agricoles de la
Producteurs Agricoles de la Sissili (FEPPA-SI), BP 131 Léo
Sissili (FEPPA-SI) Tel (226) 50413707 / 50413456
Ganamé Hamidou FNGN, Burkina Faso Fédération Nationale des groupements Naam (FNGN) ;
BP 100 Ouahigouya, Tel : +226 40550411
E-mail : email@example.com
Ganda Mohamadou DS – INRAN, Niger
Gansonré Marc FEPA-B, Burkina Faso Fédération des Professionnels Agricoles du Burkina
(FEPA-B), tel : +226 50333875, Fax : +226 50333877
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Goïta Mamadou ACORD, Mali Ong Acord ; Tel : +223 674 97 71
E-mail : email@example.com
Hanssens Niels Winrock-International, Mali Coordination Régionale Winrock International
Agriculture, Hamdallaya ACI 2000, Imm. Ali Baba
BP E457, Bamako, tel (223) 229 3880
Tel Mobile : 674 5250, Fax (223) 229 2281
Kaboré Ibrahim Secrétaire Général MAHRH, 03 BP 7010 Ouagadougou 03 Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso Tel : +226 50324110 ; Fax : +226 50305742
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Last name and First name Organisation Address
Kanouté Assétou ADAFGALLE, Mali Adafgalle, Mali
E-mail: email@example.com / firstname.lastname@example.org
Kassambara Bara Winrock-International, Mali Coordination Régionale Winrock International
Agriculture, Hamdallaya ACI 2000, Imm. Ali Baba
BP E457, Bamako, Tel (223) 229 3880
Laomaibao Netoyo INSA-CILSS, Mali CILSS/INSAH
Tél : + 223 223 40 67
Fax : + 223 222 59 80
Magha Mohamadou I. CET – ROPPA M. Mohamadou Issaka MAGHA
Cellule d’exécution technique
09 BP 894 Ouagadougou 09, Burkina Faso
Tel : + 226 50 36 08 25
Fax : + 226 50 36 26 13
E-mail : email@example.com ;
firstname.lastname@example.org; site : www.roppa.info
Metonou Pierre GEA Bénin 2e Vice-Président, GEA-Bénin
01 BP 1891 Porto Novo Bénin
Tel (Gsm) : + 229 794904
Minla MFou’Ou Jeanot Réseau APM, Afrique, Coordonnateur Général Centre d’Accompagnement
Cameroun des Nouvelles Alternatives de Développement Local
(Canadel), BP 3799 Yaoundé – Cameroun
Tel : + 237 221 31 40 / 221 53 89
Tel (Gsm) : + 237 775 66 04
E-mail : email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org;
Niangado Oumar Fondation Syngenta, Mali
Nikièma Dieudonné CESAO, Burkina Faso Directeur
Centre des Etudes Economiques et Sociales de
l’Afrique de l’Ouest –CESAO
01 BP 305, Bobo Dioulasso
Tel : +226 20 97 10 17/97-16-84
+226 76 64 28 44
Fax : + 226 20 97 08 02
E-mail : email@example.com ;
firstname.lastname@example.org; Site: www.cesao.org
Nombré Eloi CPF, Burkina Faso Confédération Paysanne du Faso (CPF)
E-mail : email@example.com
Nwalozié Marcel Coordonnateur Scientifique
Ouattara née Wininga P. Bernadette INADES – Formation INADES-Formation, 01 BP 1022 Ouagadougou 01,
Tel : +226 50340341 / 50 342829
Tel (Gsm): +226 70268696 ; Fax : 50340519
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Ouédraogo P. Michel Secrétaire Général, MRA, 03 BP 7026 Ouagadougou 03 ; Te : +226 50508243 /
Burkina Faso 50308565 ; Fax : +226 50318475
E-mail : email@example.com
Ouédraogo T. Jérémy Chercheur INERA, 01 BP 476 Ouagadougou 01
Tel : +226 50319207 ; E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Sanogo Bakary IER, Mali BP 258 Bamako, Tel (223) 222 2606 ou 223 1905
Fax (223) 222 3775 ou 222 55 73
E-mail : email@example.com
Sanogo Zana Jean-Luc ESPGRN – IER, Sikasso, Mali Agronome ESPGRN-Sikasso, BP 186
Tél (223) 62 00 28, Fax (223) 620 349
E-mail : zana.sanogo@ier/ml
Sanon Boureima UNPC-B Union Nationale des Producteurs de Coton du Burkina
(UNPC-B), 02 BP 1677 Bobo-Dioulasso
Tel : +226 20 97 33 10 / 20 98 03 08
Fax : +226 20 97 20 59
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
Last name and First name Organisation Address
Sawadogo Nebnoma CRA-BN, Burkina Faso S/C Fédération des Professionnels Agricoles du
Tel : +226 50333875 ; Fax : +226 50333877
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Sidibé Issa CIRDES Centre International de Recherche-développement sur
l’Elevage en zone Sub-Humide (CIRDES)
01 BP 454 Bobo-Dioulasso
Tel : +221 20972638 / 20972287
Fax : +226 20972320 ; E-mail : email@example.com
Sidibé Lassine AOPP – Mali Association des Organisations Professionnelles
Paysannes – AOPP
Tél (223) 228 67 81, Tel Mobile : 676 1126
Sourabié N. Ibrahim Conseiller MAHRH, Burkina 01 BP 7005 Ouagadougou 01 ; tel : +226 50326190 ;
Faso E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Toguyeni Yembila Association consommateurs Association consommateurs du Burkina Faso
E-mail : tyembila@ univ-ouaga.bf
Traoré François APROCA S/C UNPC-B, Burkina Faso
02 BP 1677 Bobo-Dioulasso
Tel : +226 20973310 / 20980308
Fax : +226 20972059 ; E-mail : email@example.com
Traoré Seydou Idrissa Directeur National DNAMR, Mali Direction Nationale de l’Appui au Monde Rural
(DNAMR), BP 1098 Bamako, Mali
Tel : +223 222 40 36 ; Tel/Fax : +223 223 33 61
Tel (Gsm) : +223 678 32 52 / 613 88 03
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Yara Athanase UNPC-B Union Nationale des Producteurs de Coton du Burkina
(UNPC-B), 02 BP 1677 Bobo-Dioulasso
Tel : +226 20 97 33 10 / 20 98 03 08
Fax : +226 20 97 20 59
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Zangré G. Roger ANVAR – CNRST, Burkina Faso Agence Nationale de Valorisation des Résultats de
recherche (ANVAR), Tel : +226 50365912
E-mail : email@example.com
Zida Mathurin CIFOR 01 BP 6044 Ouagadougou 01 ; Tel : + 226 50393157 ;
Fax : + 226 50302930 ; E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org