The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda

This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mutesasira, Peter Davis
Format: Dissertation
Language:en
Published: University of Cape Town 2014
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487
id ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-uct-oai-localhost-11427-4487
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-uct-oai-localhost-11427-44872020-10-06T05:11:08Z The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda Mutesasira, Peter Davis This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol. 2014-07-30T18:02:35Z 2014-07-30T18:02:35Z 2014-07-30 Master Thesis Masters LLM http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487 en application/pdf University of Cape Town Faculty of Law Institute of Marine and Environmental Law
collection NDLTD
language en
format Dissertation
sources NDLTD
description This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol.
author Mutesasira, Peter Davis
spellingShingle Mutesasira, Peter Davis
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
author_facet Mutesasira, Peter Davis
author_sort Mutesasira, Peter Davis
title The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
title_short The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
title_full The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
title_fullStr The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
title_full_unstemmed The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda
title_sort cartagena protocol on biosafety: a comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in south africa and uganda
publisher University of Cape Town
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487
work_keys_str_mv AT mutesasirapeterdavis thecartagenaprotocolonbiosafetyacomparativeanalysisofthedomesticimplementationinsouthafricaanduganda
AT mutesasirapeterdavis cartagenaprotocolonbiosafetyacomparativeanalysisofthedomesticimplementationinsouthafricaanduganda
_version_ 1719348815893364736