Final Added Vol 15-2.pmd


1

Banko Janakari
A journal of  forestry information for Nepal

Initiating Biosafety Procedures in Nepal

The member states of  the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have been
debating the need for a biosafety protocol since 1991, from the time the
Convention itself  was being negotiated. Since then plenty of  water have flown
in rivers, and, with time the developed countries have been putting tremendous
efforts in strengthening biosafety measures to minimise the consequences arising
from Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Nepal has yet to develop capacity
needed to restrict the GMOs that enter into its frontier either legally or illegally.
Recently initiatives to develop biosafety guidelines for Nepal have been started
by the Ministry of  Forests and Soil Conservation, which will also help ascertain
whether Nepal is a GMO-free country or not.

The experience and knowledge of  perils presented by genetic engineering and
the biotechnology industries of  the West have affirmed the serious inadequacies
in both regulations and testing procedures that currently exist, as well as the
degree of  unpredictability with regards to ecological impacts of  transgenic
organisms. Few classical examples of  such impacts, have been reported i) on soil
organisms and plant life by Ecological Society of  America; ii) rapid transfer of
transgenes by spontaneous hybridization between engineered oilseed and its weedy
relative by Denmark; iii) survival and spread of  genetically engineered organisms/
DNA from containment by Germany. DNA persistence in laboratories, waste
water treatment plants, aquatic systems, soils and digestive systems of  mammals
has also been shown in a series of  experiments. The long-term ecosystem effects
of  these surprise survivals are unknown. The GMOs, which are currently designed
for commercial release, are designed to be robust and vigorous. Despite they are
not supposedly designed to survive in open environment, increasing evidences
have shown that these organisms survive in waste water and sludge, soils and
aquatic ecosystems. From there they may migrate, mutate and multiply. This self-
replicating nature of  genetic material and lateral spread through ecosystems results
in an intrinsically unstable and unpredictable situation. Even the (limited)
understanding that we have at present, has now recognised three major risks:

• effects of  transgenic products (primary and secondary) on non-target
organisms;

• establishment and spread of  transgenic crop plants in non-target sites; and



2

• transfer by hybridization and introgression of  transgenes from crop into
wild relatives.

Of  special concern to a developing country like ours are the socio-economic
impacts of  the introduction of  GMOs and products. In the long run, it seems
that the transgenic crops are likely to replace our traditional crops on which the
rural communities have depended for their survival and livelihood since long. In
addition, the patented transgenic crop could prevent the use of  non-transgenic
donor or recipient species by traditional farmers, resulting in the loss of  landraces
and increased production costs as farmers will then have to pay for patented
seeds and their accompanying package of  herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers.

In Agenda 21 of  CBD, Governments undertook to consider international
cooperation on safety in biotechnology. That commitment includes: sharing
experience, capacity-building and international agreement on principles for
biosafety. Nepal is one of  the 170 plus countries to sign and ratify the Convention
in 1992 and 1993 respectively. It was followed by signing and implementing the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on March 2001. Authorities are now confident
that this guideline will “greatly help conserve biodiversity and promote public
health”. There is no doubt that a foundation has been laid, but how long will
Nepal take to build capacity so that it could protect itself  from the perils of
intruding biotechnology is a serious concern.