Posted by The National Biotechnology Development Agency, NABDA, and the National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, NACGRAB, should not be combined to form the National Biotechnology Research and Development Agency, NBRDA, according to environmental experts.
They pleaded with the Federal Executive Council, or FEC, to reconsider the merger’s plans because they jeopardize Nigeria’s biosafety.
Recall that the FEC chose to put the Steve Oronsaye panel’s recommendations for the reorganization and rationalization of federal agencies, parastatals, and commissions into practice in order to increase efficiency in the federal civil service and lower the cost of government. Implementation entails the merger, acquisition, and dissolution of agencies performing comparable tasks.
The FEC’s idea of restructuring and rationalizing Federal Government agencies is a welcome development, but in order to ensure adequate institutional support—including budgetary allocations and concrete implementation plans—a critical review of the current mandate of all agencies, parastatals, and commissions to be merged is required, according to a statement released on Thursday by Dr. Nnimmo Bassey, the Executive Director of Health of Mother Earth Foundation, or HOMEF.
Speaking about the combination of NABDA and NACGRAB, Bassey clarified that the roles played by the two organizations are distinct, pointing out that NABDA was founded in 2001 under the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology to carry out the policy that aims to conduct research and promote, coordinate, and develop biotechnology for Nigeria.
He continued by saying that the same ministry founded NACGRAB in 1987 with the goal of gathering, preserving, and guaranteeing the sustainable use of priceless genetic resources for food and agriculture. NACGRAB’s genebank is situated in Ibadan, southwest Nigeria.
Bassey emphasized that there is an obvious conflict of interest between the NABDA’s and NACGRAB’s missions because of the latter’s strong and unique role in regulating the cattle, fishery, and seed industries.
Additionally, the National Committee on Naming, Registration, and Release of Crop Varieties, Livestock Breeding, and Fisheries is coordinated by the NACGRAB. Then, how would the proposed NBRDA, for instance, guarantee the creation of novel crop types by genetic engineering and authorize their commercial release? He asked.
Joyce Brown, Director of Programs at HOMEF, pointed out that while both organizations are mandated to conduct research, the nature of that study varies.
Brown suggested that NACGRAB work with the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), which has a similar regulatory role in this case, to regulate modern biotechnology activities and the handling, release, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are products of modern biotechnology, in order to prevent negative effects on the environment and human health, rather than merging with NABDA.
Even better, the NBMA can join the NACGRAB as a unit, guaranteeing institutional support and supervision as it tackles the deficiencies in the current biosafety regulatory framework.
“Yet, a center that takes pride in its dedication to the preservation of the rich genetic resources of the country is also in charge of authorizing the release of genetically modified varieties that threaten this very mandate. This calls for a clarification of the NACGRAB’s mandate.”
Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje, a food sovereignty activist and the deputy executive director of Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria, pointed out that there are many issues with the proposed merger and that, should it go through, there would be no more genetically modified agriculture in Nigeria. She called this a “recipe for disaster.”
Orovwuje demanded that the government now take into account establishing an agroecology policy, which has been shown to alleviate food shortages, boost local economies, and guarantee climate change adaption.