Ethiopia’s Country Report on Genome Editing (GEd) Landscape Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background: Genome editing is emerging as a technology that has great potential to enhance productivity and production of key agricultural value chains in Ethiopia. If well embraced and supported in terms of funding and conducive regulatory environment, GEd could address many of the prevailing challenges such as crop and livestock diseases, low yields and other societal needs. It is for this reason that the Ethiopian government recognized the importance of regulatory body and established an independent regulatory authority, the Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
Key findings: Following the establishment of EPA, the country signed and ratified several conventions and protocols including the Convention for Biodiversity Convention (CBD) and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). The country also enacted its own Biosafety law in 2009 as Proclamation No. 655/2009 and amended the previous proclamation in 2015. So far, the Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture (EIAR) is the only nationally designated applicant and has secured several approvals to conduct research on transgenic crops under contained laboratory, Confined Field Trials (CFTs) and open field (environmental clearance). Ethiopia has three (3) Genome Edited (GEd) projects on-going focusing on important food crops: Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata), Teff and Sorghum (SSSfA).
Trends: Genome editing in Ethiopia is moving from policy design to early implementation. The journey has evolved through distinct milestones, beginning with the 2015 amendment of the Biosafety Proclamation that positioned the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as the lead implementing body, followed by national capacity-building efforts in 2022 that introduced and discussed a draft guideline tailored for genome-edited products. Momentum increased in 2023–2024 with the acceleration of teff Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) collaborations, supported by external regulatory experiences that clarified non-transgenic pathways and informed Ethiopia’s domestic approach. Culminating in 2025, Ethiopia officially published its Guideline on the Regulation of Genome-Edited Products, which is now being applied in dossier scoping and preparing the ground for the country’s first confined field trials of gene-edited crops.
Policy Implications (Short and Medium/Long-term): In its short term, Ethiopia’s new Guideline on Genome-Edited Products provides regulatory clarity and sets the stage for confined field trials, particularly in crops like teff. The immediate focus will be on operationalizing the guidelines, implementing procedures, reviewer training, and transparent communication strategies to ensure predictable decision-making. Policymakers must also strengthen biosafety capacity, establish clear labeling/traceability norms, and engage stakeholders (farmers, researchers, consumers) to build trust.
In the medium/long-term, Ethiopia will need to integrate GEd into national agricultural and food security strategies, with policies that encourage local innovation, regional regulatory harmonization (AUDA-NEPAD alignment), and market access planning given divergent global trade rules. Investments in CRISPR infrastructure, bioinformatics, and talent retention will be crucial, as will stewardship frameworks that ensure equitable seed access and benefit-sharing. Over time, successful policy implementation could position Ethiopia as a regional leader in applying GEd to orphan crops like teff and sorghum, contributing to climate resilience, productivity, and food system transformation.
Priority GEd Organisms
Overview
1.1 Agricultural landscape of Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s agricultural landscape is dominated by smallholder farming, which provides livelihoods for more than 80% of the population and remains the backbone of the national economy. The sector is largely rain-fed and subsistence-oriented, with farmers cultivating an average of less than two hectares of land. Key staple crops include teff, maize, sorghum, wheat, and barley, alongside pulses and oilseeds, while coffee is the country’s main export crop. Livestock production is also significant, with Ethiopia hosting one of Africa’s largest cattle populations, contributing to food, income, and draft power. Despite its importance, agriculture faces persistent challenges such as low productivity, land degradation, limited irrigation, and vulnerability to climate variability, particularly drought. In recent years, government strategies and investment plans have focused on modernizing agriculture through improved inputs, irrigation expansion, climate-smart practices, and integration of technologies like biotechnology and genome editing to boost resilience and productivity.
1.2 National Regulatory Frameworks in Genome Editing
Genome editing (GEd) in Ethiopia is increasingly being integrated into broader national frameworks, aligning with the country’s Agricultural Development and Investment Plans that prioritize food security, climate resilience, and productivity gains in staple crops like teff, sorghum, and wheat. Ethiopia’s biotechnology and biosafety policies, anchored in the amended 2015 Biosafety Proclamation. Guideline on Regulation of Genome-Edited Products, provide the regulatory foundation to ensure safe innovation while promoting research and development. These policies complement national strategies on science, technology, and innovation by fostering local capacity in advanced breeding techniques, while also linking to climate adaptation and nutrition programs that emphasize resilient varieties and improved dietary quality. Together, these frameworks position genome editing not as a stand-alone technology but as a cross-cutting tool embedded within Ethiopia’s development priorities, with the potential to accelerate agricultural transformation, attract investment, and enhance the country’s role in regional agri-biotech leadership.
Ethiopia has been proactive in aligning its biotechnology and genome editing governance with regional frameworks, particularly those advanced by the African Union Development Agency–NEPAD (AUDA-NEPAD) and the African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE). The country has actively participated in regional consultations, training programs, and policy harmonization efforts that emphasize science-based, proportionate regulation of modern biotechnologies. Ethiopia’s adoption of the Guideline on Regulation of Genome-Edited Products reflects this regional influence, drawing on AUDA-NEPAD recommendations for distinguishing gene-edited products from transgenic GMOs. By engaging in these continental platforms, Ethiopia not only strengthens its domestic capacity and policy coherence but also positions itself to facilitate regional trade, knowledge sharing, and collective regulatory convergence, ensuring that its genome editing initiatives especially in orphan crops like teff and sorghum are compatible with Africa’s broader agricultural innovation agenda.
1.3 Challenges and Opportunities for Genome editing in Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s pathway toward adopting genome editing (GEd) technologies reflects both pressing challenges and promising opportunities, shaped by scientific, socio-economic, and political realities. Challenges include persistent food insecurity driven by low agricultural productivity, recurrent drought, soil degradation, and pest and disease pressures, all of which underscore the urgency of modern crop improvement. Limited laboratory infrastructure, dependence on external collaborations, and shortages of trained personnel constrain local innovation, while fragmented seed systems and weak extension services hinder technology delivery to farmers. Political instability in some regions has disrupted agricultural activities, diverted government priorities, and strained institutional capacity for research and regulatory oversight, potentially slowing the rollout of new technologies. Public perception and misinformation also remain barriers, necessitating stronger communication and trust-building mechanisms. At the same time, opportunities are significant: Ethiopia has strong policy commitments to agricultural transformation through its National Agricultural Development and Investment Plans, and the recent Guideline on Regulation of Genome-Edited Products creates a clearer pathway for research and deployment. Partnerships with African and global institutions are enhancing scientific capacity, while Ethiopia’s leadership in orphan crops like teff offers the chance to pioneer regionally relevant applications of GEd. With effective governance, investment, and inclusive engagement, genome editing could directly contribute to national priorities of food security, climate resilience, and economic growth, while also positioning Ethiopia as a continental leader in science-driven agricultural innovation.
The general (overall) objective of the Genome Editing (GEd) Landscape Analysis, therefore, is focused on obtaining an in-depth assessment and analysis of existing policies, infrastructural, institutional, and technical capabilities to encompass product development and commercialization in a select number of African countries. Specifically, for Ethiopia, like the other selected countries, the objectives/aims of the Landscape Analysis are/were to:
Provide an evidence-based description and analysis of the status of modern biotechnology and GEd in Ethiopia, highlighting key trends, intervening factors and areas for attention, as well as fundamental aspects such as science/technical, political, geo-political, social, human, culture and traditions, etc. that support or hinder advances in the application of genome editing in agriculture and food systems.
Identify the emerging needs in Ethiopia that GEd can readily address, especially those which require rapid responses at scale. These needs will focus on food systems i.e., agricultural productivity, reduction of postharvest losses, climate adaptation, food and nutrition security, diversified and healthy diets, and
Identify staple and indigenous crops based on Ethiopia national context that can improve the livelihoods of people through food security, better nutrition, climate resilience, and sustainable productivity.
Data was collected from secondary and primary sources. The secondary data was gathered and assembled from the published literature and stakeholders (institutional) databases including websites. The primary data was assembled through live interviews using online data collection kit (ODK), surveys, and/or email communications through sharing of questionnaires in a word document format. The primary data further confirmed and/or improved/strengthened secondary data. Data from these two sources (primary and secondary) were then analysed, synthesized and packaged in terms of:
Status of biotech/GEd regulatory and policy frameworks:Components of the regulatory and policy frameworks were identified and documented via the secondary data (published literature, institutional website databases) and primary data (live interviews, surveys, and email communication channels) acquisitions.
Projects, crops and traits ready for commercialization and scaling: Similar to regulatory and policy frameworks, biotech and particularly GEd projects, crops and traits including key stakeholders (partnerships) involved, and sources of funding were documented through secondary data (published literature, website databases) and primary data acquisitions. The synthesized and analysed data from GEd projects which included crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry, and traits were used to further:
identify emerging needs to address economic, social and environmental/climate benefits, and,
provide information on the status of existing human and infrastructures capacities in GEd Technologies in target countries,
Staple, Indigenous and commercial crops that need improvement using GEd technology: The data on GEd projects were further disaggregated (categorized) in terms of those with highest potential that need GEd technology for national socio-economic impact and the possibility of successful completion in view of national acceptance, resource requirements and scalability.
Institutional capacity (human capital, laboratory and field infrastructure, equipment): Data on existing institutional capacities in terms of human capital, lab and field infrastructure, equipment to engage in GEd R&D, commercialization and scaling were gathered from the respondents during the primary data exercise.
Stakeholder mapping: Key stakeholders, institutions and, where appropriate, personnel, were identified to provide critical data on existing biotech and GEd technologies’ interventions, spread across the five (5) stakeholders categories identified in the Questionnaires (Data collection tools), namely, regulatory agencies, research organizations/institutions, universities, private sector/industry and other government agencies/ministries and policymakers.
Database Systems and Database Management: Appropriate data collection tools (Questionnaires) and platforms to support primary data collection were developed. The questionnaires were tailor-made and specific to identify and map stakeholder categories, namely, regulatory, research, universities, private sector and government and other agencies were used to produce data sets (data systems). The data set gauged a Kenya’s preparedness (capabilities) or lack of it to fully embrace, engage and scale up GEd technologies. To kick-off the primary data collection, enumerators, were identified, selected, and recruited. These enumerators were taken through an online training/induction exercise on the use of ODK and corresponding data collection questionnaires/tools by the IT team and the train-the-trainers (ToT) from the Africa Harvest and AGTECH consortium. The questionnaire tools and ODK platforms were pre-tested before use and the exercise rolled out to generate data that was used to build Data Base Systems and Data Base for each country. Both methodological and data triangulation to reduce bias and enhance the validity and reliability of the findings (results) were used. All collected data were encrypted and stored in a secure, centralized server, ensuring participants’ confidentiality and compliance with ethical standards.
Data synthesis and statistical analysis: Data collected was synthesized and, where appropriate (quantitative), statistically analysed using SPSS. Variables subjected to statistical tools included but not limited to i) number of elements describing the regulatory frameworks, ii) number of applications received and approved (field testing, registration and commercialization), iii) number of R&D institutions and their personnel and lab/field infrastructure, iv) number of projects, v) number of crops or livestock, vi) number of traits and so on. Each country was “mapped” (reported) according to its regulatory framework, biotech and GEd projects, crops, livestock, fisheries or forestry and traits, GEd training, human capital, infrastructure and laboratory capabilities, funding opportunities etc.
3.1 National Regulatory Framework
Ethiopia has established a solid legal and institutional framework to guide biotechnology and genome editing, anchored in its commitments under multilateral environmental agreements. The country is a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and has ratified its major instruments, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which provides the foundation for regulating living modified organisms (LMOs). Ethiopia has also acceded to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, reinforcing its stance on the fair and equitable use of genetic resources. At the national level, the Biosafety Proclamation (Amendment) No. 896/2015 serves as the primary legal instrument governing biosafety, complemented in 2025 by the Guideline on the Regulation of Genome-Edited Products, which introduces a risk-proportionate, case-by-case pathway for evaluating gene-edited organisms distinct from transgenic GMOs. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is the national competent authority (NCA) for biosafety and genome editing, tasked with granting permits, conducting risk assessments, and overseeing compliance, while the Bio and Emerging Technology Institute (BETin) supports policy, coordination, and public communication. The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) and universities play central roles in R&D and capacity building, while the Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority (EFDA) is relevant for food/feed safety assessment. Importantly, Ethiopia is also a member of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the international food standards body, which is critical for guiding the risk assessment of food products developed using genome editing and ensuring alignment with global food safety norms. Together, these instruments and institutions form an integrated framework that positions Ethiopia to responsibly advance genome editing while safeguarding biodiversity, food safety, and public trust.
National Biosafety Advisory Committee (NBAC) representing 15 institutions was established and a representative from each institute was appointed by the prime minister. These institutions are listed as follows:
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Trade and Industry
Ethiopian Biotechnology Institute
Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
Customs Commission
Ethiopian Standards Agency
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Addis Ababa University Institute of Biotechnology
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University
Consumer’s Association
Attorney General (Ministry of Justice)
EPA legal Directorate General
Civil Society Organization
NGO
3.2 Regulations & Guidelines
Following the establishment of EPA, the country signed and ratified several conventions and protocols including the Convention for Biodiversity Convention (CBD) and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB). Previously EPA was at a ministerial level called Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change (MEFC). But currently, under ministry of planning and development of Ethiopia. EPA has a mandate of regulating all activities related to Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) and GEd. Ethiopia ratified the CBD by Proclamation No. 98/1994 and signed the CPB on May 24, 2000. The country also issued its own Biosafety law in 2009 as Proclamation No. 655/2009. However, the law was prohibitive for technology adoption as it restrained, prevented research and innovation. Its focus was on conservation only, not in favor of research-based conservation and it didn’t reflect the benefits of biotechnology. There is a strong need from the government to go forward with biotechnology research & innovations to support the country’s agricultural & industrial needs (especially the supply of raw material for growing industries). As a result, an amendment was made in 2015 with Biosafety Proclamation No. 896/2015. Some of the milestones of biosafety development and provisions in Ethiopia is summarized in table 1& 2.
Table1. Status of Country Participation in Key Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) / Treaties | Date of Ratification / Accession by the Country | Reference |
Codex Alimentarius Commission is a joint body of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization established to develop international food standards, guidelines, and codes of practice. critical for risk assessment of food developed through genome editing |
Member 1968 | https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/members/en/
|
Convention on Biological Diversity | Signed: 1992 Ratified: 2003 | |
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety | Signed: 2000 | https://bch.epa.gov.et/?utm |
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | Ratified 1994
| https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Ethiopia_First%20BUR.pdf?utm_s |
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) | Proclamation 2012 (No. 753/2012) | http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eth160766.pdf |
Table 2. Regulatory and Institutional Landscape for Genome Editing (GEd) in Ethiopia
Institutions | Mandate / Relevance to GEd | Regulatory instruments | Date of enactment or publication | Coverage/ scope | Reference |
Environmental Protection Authority | Developing and implementing the legal and regulatory framework for genome editing and modern biotechnology in Ethiopia. | Biosafety Proclamation No.655/2009 National Biotechnology Law Biosafety (Amendment) Proclamation No. 896/2015 | 2009 2015 | R&D, Commercialisation, Trade, etc. | https://bch.epa.gov.et/downloads-3/
|
National Biosafety (Implementation, etc.) Regulations 2017 | 2017 | R&D, Commercialisation, Trade, etc. | https://bch.epa.gov.et/downloads-3/ | ||
Directive No. 05/2018 (To provide Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) | 2018 | R&D, Commercialisation, Trade, etc. | https://bch.epa.gov.et/downloads-3/ | ||
Guidelines on stacked genes | 2024 | R&D, Commercialisation, Trade, etc. | https://bch.epa.gov.et/downloads-3/ | ||
Guideline for the Regulation of Genome Edited Plants in Ethiopia | 2024 | R&D, Commercialisation, Trade, etc. | https://webinar.afriscidialogue.org/ethiopia-publishes-guidelines-on-regulation-of-genome-edited-products/?utm |
3.3 Socio-economic considerations for decision-making:
Ethiopian agriculture has been challenged by several biotic and abiotic factors because of climate change and many other related factors. Drought, crop disease and newly introduced insect pests are among the top contributors to the low productivity and poor nutritional quality of the crop in Ethiopia. Efforts to improve crop productivity using the current practice such as conventional breeding, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), chemical treatments, and cultural control methods are found to be ineffective. Besides, these strategies face significant challenges, including impracticality for farmers and the adverse effects of pesticide use, such as resistance development and harm to non-target species.
The global socio-economic and environmental impacts of GEd crops, which have been commercialized so far, show positive contributions on farm-level economics and environmental effects. GEd crops have been repeatedly proven safe and successfully used to improve agricultural productivity around the world. Therefore, this technology offers Ethiopian farmers an alternative and affordable solutions. There is strong need to have traits beneficial to farmers, consumers and the environment and GEd technology is the best alternative in addressing those challenges.
3.4 Analysis of Genome Editing Programs and Projects
Ethiopia has three (3) GEd projects on-going focusing on important food crops: Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata), Teff and sorghum (Table 3). All the projects are crops with no work on livestock, fisheries, marine and agroforestry. In addition, two projects are at research and development and on at deployment and commercialization (Table 3). Among the institutions involved in GEd projects Addis Ababa University is very pivotal as two of the ongoing projects are domiciled in the institution. Other that support GEd projects include ; Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Institute for International Crop Improvement, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- biotech Applications and Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA (Table 3).
Table 3. Genome Editing Projects and Programs in Ethiopia
Projects/ Programs (organism) | Trait | Collaborating partners | GEd Technique | Stage (Lab, field trial, commercialization) | Funding (US$) | Funding source | Reference |
Improving oil qualities of Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata) | Low erucic acid | Institute of Biotechnology, Addis Ababa University | CRISPR-Cas9 | Research and Development (R & D) |
| Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) | Ngure & Karembu, 2023 |
Genome Editing in Tef for Uplifting Productivity (GETUP) | Lodging resistance | MSU, EIAR, Corteva, DDPSC | CRISPR-Cas9 | Deployment and Commercialization (D & C) | 4.9 | Donald Danforth Plant Science Center & Corteva | Beyene et al., 2022 |
Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa Project | Striga resistance | Kenyatta university (Lead), Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia), International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications ISAAA) AfriCenter | CRISPR-Cas9 | R & D | 3.8 | Feed the Future of USAID | Iraki, Runo & Karembu, 2023 |
3.5 Analysis of Human Capital and Institutional Capacity
Improving the quality of education and training in biotechnology will create the human capital necessary to innovate and apply new technologies for national development. More than 30 public universities offering biotechnology courses. Most of them are running undergraduate programs while some of them are providing advanced training in biotechnology both at MSc and PhD levels. However, more support is needed for training and capacity building in modern biotechnology and biosafety, including for emerging technologies like GEd.
The country has established institutions like the Bio and Emerging Technology Institute (BETin), human capital in the field of GEd research and development is not sufficient, and there's a critical need for more technical experts and better-coordinated research. Building strong institutional capacity and fostering skilled human capital are essential to developing robust biotechnology policies and effectively absorbing and adapting modern technologies in Ethiopia.
3.5.1 Research, Development and Academic Institutions
Some institutions in Ethiopia are actively involved in genome editing research and training, with a focus on both crop improvement and potential applications in disease treatment. Addis Ababa University, Haramaya University, and the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research are prominent examples of organizations involved in this field. Training initiatives, often in collaboration with international partners, are aimed at equipping researchers and scientists with the necessary skills in genome editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9.
Selected universities that commenced post graduate programs in the field of biotechnology are summarized in table 4.
Table 4. Universities Offering trainings on Biotechnology and GEd related courses in Ethiopia
Institution | BSc Program | Master’s Program | PhD Program |
Addis Ababa University | Biology | Agricultural Biotechnology | Industrial Biotechnology Medical Biotechnology |
Haramaya University | Biology | Agricultural Biotechnology |
|
Debre Birhan University | General Biotechnology
| Biotechnology | No PhD program in Biotechnology |
Hawassa University | Biotechnology | Plant Biotechnology | Animal Biotechnology |
Gonder University | General Biotechnology
| Environmental & Industrial Biotechnology
| |
Mekelle University | Biotechnology | Bioinformatics | No PhD program in Biotechnology |
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University | General Biotechnology
| Plant Biotechnology Animal Biotechnology | Industrial Biotechnology |
Ambo University | Biology | Biotechnology | No PhD program in Biotechnology |
Jima University | Biology | Plant Biotechnology | No PhD program in Biotechnology |
Adama Science and Technology University | Applied Biology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
Walkite University | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | No PhD program in Biotechnology |
Arba Minch University | Biology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
Bahir Der University | No undergraduate course in Biotechnology | Agricultural Biotechnology Health Biotechnology Environmental Biotechnology Industrial Biotechnology | Agricultural Biotechnology Health Biotechnology Environmental Biotechnology Industrial Biotechnology |
3.5.2 Training and Professional Development
Training on GEd were provided in different times both regionally and internationally (Table 5). Organizations like the Innovative Genomics Institute (IGI), and institutions such as the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center offer specialized, hands-on training, often with a focus on CRISPR/Cas9 technology.
Table 5. Overview of Training Programmes on Genome Editing
Institution / Organization | Training Programme | Target Audience / # of Trainees per annual | Frequency | Duration | Gaps Identified |
Innovative Genomic Institute
| CRISPR Course | Postdoctoral, Mid-level research scientist (4 in total) | Annually | 4 weeks | Delayed in replicating the technologies domestically due to lack of legal framework |
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) | CRISPR Course | Postdoctoral, Mid-level research scientist (4 in total) | Annually | 4 weeks | Delayed in replicating the technologies domestically due to lack of legal framework |
The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
| CRISPR Course in GEd on Tef | Visiting scientists, Mid-level research scientists (2 in total) | Every six months | 6-12 months | Delayed in replicating the technologies domestically due to lack of legal framework |
AUDA-NEPAD (GEd initiative) | CRISPR Course | Postdoctoral, Mid-level research scientist (4 in total) | Annually | 4 weeks | Delayed in replicating the technologies domestically due to lack of legal framework |
.
3. 6 Specific GEd Initiatives and Institutions
Addis Ababa University: The university has a strong research focus on genome editing, particularly in the Institute of Biotechnology, where they are working on improving staple crops like Ethiopian mustard and tef. They are also involved in integrating plant genomics with conventional breeding. Haramaya University is collaborating with Ghent University on a project that includes training courses in basic and advanced molecular techniques, with a focus on genome editing. They are also prioritizing training for mid-level lecturers with a gender balance.
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR): EIAR is collaborating with the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center to develop semi-dwarf tef varieties using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. They are also involved in research on generating mechanizable tef varieties.
Debre Birhan University: The Department of Biotechnology at Debre Birhan University is involved in research on the application of genome editing technologies for disease treatment.
Bio and Emerging Technology Institute (BETin): BETin is involved in stakeholder validation of genome editing training materials and curriculum.
3.7 Analysis of Infrastructure and Equipment
3.7.1 Universities
Many universities started tissue culture activities using indigenous plants long ago. Most of them made significant advancements in upgrading the laboratories to full-fledged biotechnology institutes/departments. Most of them are dedicated to provide training for post-graduate students using the established lab facilities.
Table 6. Status and Needs Assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities by Universities
Institution | Type of Facility | Biosafety Level | Status (see Annex 2) | Limitations | Support Needed |
Addis Ababa University |
| Lab, BSL2 Greenhouse | Fully equipped, | Procurement problem, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Jimma University |
| Lab, Greenhouse, field trials | Not-fully equipped | Procurement problem, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Hawassa University |
| Lab, Greenhouse, field trials | Not-fully equipped | Procurement, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Gonder University |
| Lab, Greenhouse, field trials | Not-fully equipped | Procurement, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Mekelle University |
| Lab, Greenhouse, field trials | Not-fully equipped | Procurement, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University |
| Lab, Greenhouse, field trials | Not-fully equipped | Procurement, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
3.7.2 Research Institutions
Most of the institutions have modest lab facilities to carry out GEd projects. EIAR is the leading agriculture research institute to establish excellent laboratory infrastructure and furnish with the support obtained from world bank through Agricultural Research and Training Project (ARTP) and Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP), respectively. The lab has all the basic facilities to conduct GEd activities. The key laboratories include molecular biotechnology and tissue culture which are the facilities to carry out GEd activities. Similarly, the government established Bio and Emerging Institute (BETin) which is mainly mandated for coordination of biotechnology research and education in Ethiopia. The institute has state-of-the-art laboratory facilities including second generation sequencing machines.
Table 7. Status and Needs Assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities by Research Institutions
Institution | Type of Facility | Biosafety Level | Status (see Annex 2) | Limitations | Support Needed |
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research |
| Lab, BSL2 Greenhouse | Fully equipped | Procurement problem, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Bio and Emerging Technology Institute |
| Lab, BSL2 Greenhouse | Fully equipped | Procurement problem, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
Armauer Hansen Research Institute |
| Lab, BSL2 Greenhouse
| Fully equipped | Procurement problem, shortage of hard currency, shortage of consumables/chemicals on local market | Specialized procurement system, private sector engagement |
3.8 Analysis of Indigenous and Staple Crops, Livestock, Agroforestry, and Fisheries Varieties/ Breeds for Improvement Using GEd
Ethiopia's agricultural development plans, such as the Ten Years Development Plan (2021-2030), focus on increasing productivity, modernization, and commercialization through initiatives like the Growth and Transformation Plans (GTPs). It mainly emphasized intensive use of labor and land, with a focus on irrigation, fertilizer, technology, and infrastructure development to increase productivity and production. Biotechnology is selected as one of the important tools to achieve this ambitious plan.
Ethiopia has three (3) GEd projects on-going focusing on important food crops: Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata), Teff and sorghum (Table 8). All the projects are crops with no work on livestock, fisheries, marine and agroforestry. In addition, two projects are at research and development and on at deployment and commercialization (Table 8). Among the institutions involved in GEd projects Addis Ababa University is very pivotal as two of the ongoing projects are domiciled in the institution. Other that support GEd projects include ; Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Institute for International Crop Improvement, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- biotech Applications and Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Table 8. Priority Organisms for Genome Editing Application
Organism / Species | Trait improvement of Interest | Socioeconomic Justification | GEd Potential (Low/Medium/High) | Existing R&D | Actual Annual Production Capacity (tonnes) | Expected Annual Production Capacity (tonnes) |
Sorghum | Resistance to parasitic Striga weed | 4th most important cereal after wheat, teff and maize; used for food, beverages (e.g., injera, beer), and fodder | High | Conventional breeding and GEd technology | 4.1 million | Over 6 million |
Ethiopian mustard | Low erucic acid | Emerging oilseed with potential for local edible oil production and industrial use; niche markets for low erucic varieties | High | Conventional breeding and GEd technology | 75000 | 2.3 million |
Teff | Lodging resistance | Cultural staple; accounts for 30% of cereal land, top value cereal | High | Conventional breeding, mutation breeding and GEd technology | 6.2 million | 7 million |
3.9 Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit Sharing
Ethiopia's regulatory framework for Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and benefit sharing of genetic resources, including those used in genome editing, is guided by the Nagoya Protocol and aims to ensure sovereign rights over genetic resources and equitable benefit sharing with communities. While Ethiopia has national laws that define genetic resources as state-owned and acknowledge community intellectual property, their implementation faces challenges, including inconsistent application, potential conflicts with international IPR frameworks, and a need for more research on their effectiveness in achieving concrete outcomes. The growing field of genome editing presents a particular challenge, requiring policy support to integrate these advanced technologies with the existing ABS framework
The Ethiopian Intellectual Property Authority (EIPA) is responsible to administer and implement State policies on intellectual property (IP) to strengthen the protection of IP rights in the country. The country has excellent experiences from Bt cotton and Bt maize technologies in handling issues associated with intellectual property rights and benefit sharing.
The projects engage a number of stakeholders including farmers, development agents, scientists and seed companies. Women engagement is very crucial as they are the primary victims of agriculture production challenges like weeds and lodging of crops.
3.10 Analysis of Private Sector Participation
The private sector will play critical towards the commercialization of GEd products by providing testing sites and conducting on-farm trials of GEd developed lines. The private sectors like seed companies are responsible for seed production and distribution to both small- and large-scale farmers in the future. Besides, they are the main target for seed production research before commercialization of the GEd products. Some of the national private entities are Green Agro Solutions PLC, MIDROC investment group, Luna group and Corteva Agriscience. In addition, there are international entities such as BASF (Germany),Tropic Biosciences (UK) and 2Blades Foundation.
Currently the national agricultural research system conducting many Public Private Projects including TELA maize which is a typical PPP model between international organizations and other NARs partners.
Table 9. Overview of Genome Editing Stakeholders and Activities in the Private Sector
Company/Entity | Type (Agri-biotech, Start-up, etc.) | GEd Activities | Partnerships | Challenges Faced | Investment Interest |
Green Agro Solutions PLC | Advisory service to small holder farmers | Commercialization | EIAR | No GEd products so far | Unknown |
MIDROC Investment group | Seed production | Commercialization | EIAR | No GEd products so far | Seed system |
Luna group | Seed production | Commercialization | EIAR | No GEd products so far | Seed system |
BASF (Germany) | Seed production | Commercialization | EIAR | No GEd products so far | Seed system |
Corteva Agriscience | Seed production | Commercialization | EIAR | No GEd products so far | Seed system |
3.11 Analysis of Funding and Investment landscape
Genome editing presents significant market growth opportunities but faces gaps in investment for crucial areas like sustainable agriculture and equitable technology access, particularly in developing countries like Ethiopia. Key challenges include, lack of funding, inaccessibility to technologies, lack of diverse research participation, and the need for robust ethical and regulatory frameworks to ensure responsible and inclusive application of these powerful technologies. Insufficient investment in modern infrastructure, such as cutting-edge research facilities and advanced equipment, particularly in African nations, hinders the continent's ability to leverage genome editing for agricultural advancement.
Investment on GEd technology has huge opportunity for crop improvement, enabling greater yields, enhanced nutritional value, and improved resistance to pests and environmental safety, crucial for food security.
Table 10. Overview of National and Other Funding Sources for Genome Editing
Funder/Donor | Organization Type | GEd Project | Amount (USD) | Duration | Recipient Institution(s) | Area of Focus |
Government funding | Government | Bt cotton, Transgenic enset, Coffee GEd | 140,350 | 5 Years | EIAR | Indigenous crops |
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) | Development partner | Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa Project (Collaborative Project) | 3.5 million | 5 Years | AAU | Striga resistant Sorghum |
Gates Foundation (formerly, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – BMGF) | Development partner | Genome Editing in Tef for Uplifting Productivity (GETUP) | 4.9 million | 5 Years | EIAR | Logging resistant Tef |
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) | Development partner | Improving oil qualities of Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata) | Funded together with other projects | 4 Years | AAU | Oil quality in Brassica |
Private Sector – Open Innovation Fund – Corteva | Private sector/ Industry | Potential investor in the future |
|
|
|
|
Ethiopia is actively developing its genome editing policies by implementing product-based biosafety guidelines to foster innovation in agriculture, focusing on the absence of foreign genes for regulatory pathway determination, and promoting responsible use of these technologies while supporting research institutions. Key recommendations include continued development of robust biosafety frameworks, capacity building for decision-makers, engagement with stakeholders, and fostering an environment that supports local researchers and businesses to leverage genome editing for food security and economic growth.
Table 11. short-term and long-term policy actions
Short-term | Objective |
| To enhance country capacity in genome editing regulation, aligning with the best global practices.
|
| To foster buy-in from high-level officials and engaging stakeholders to transform the agricultural sector |
| To build consensus on the potential of genome editing technology |
Long-term policy |
|
| To establish science-based decision-making processes and regulatory frameworks to guide the safe and responsible application of genome editing in Ethiopia |
| To drive the development and commercialization of genome editing products. |
| To create a conducive environment for public research institutes and local businesses to innovate and commercialize genome editing technologies |
| To strengthen collaborations and partnerships among all stakeholders to promote the adoption and application of genome editing |
| To leverage genome editing to address challenges such as rising living costs and agricultural product prices, thereby enhancing economic growth and national prosperity |
AfriSCI Dialogue. (2024). Ethiopia publishes guidelines on regulation of genome edited products. https://webinar.afriscidialogue.org/ethiopia-publishes-guidelines-on-regulation-of-genome-edited-products/
Beyene, G., Chauhan, R. D., Villmer, J., Husic, N., Wang, N., Gebre, E., Girma, D., Chanyalew, S., Assefa, K., Tabor, G., Gehan, M., McGrone, M., Yang, M., Lenderts, B., Schwartz, C., Gao, H., Gordon-Kamm, W., Taylor, N. J., & MacKenzie, D. J. (2022). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated tetra-allelic mutation of the 'Green Revolution' SEMIDWARF-1 (SD-1) gene confers lodging resistance in tef (Eragrostis tef). Plant Biotechnology Journal, 20(5), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13761
Ethiopian Biosafety Clearing-House; https://bch.epa.gov.et/downloads-3/
Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority. (2009). Biosafety Proclamation No. 655/2009. https://bch.epa.gov.et/
Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority. (2015). Biosafety (Amendment) Proclamation No. 896/2015. https://bch.epa.gov.et/
FAOLEX. (2012). Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Proclamation No. 753/2012. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eth160766.pdf
GeneDrive Network. (2024). Gene editing: A short course for African bioscience professionals. https://genedrivenetwork.org/blog/gene-editing-a-short-course-for-african-bioscience-professionals/
Innovative Genomics Institute. (n.d.). AfPBA CRISPR Course in Gene Editing – Africa. https://innovativegenomics.org/programs/public-impact/afpba-crispr-course-africa/
Iraki, B., Runo, S. M., & Karembu, M. (2023). Top ten facts about the Striga Smart Sorghum for Africa Project. ISAAA AfriCenter. https://isaaa.org/resources/publications
Ngure, G., & Karembu, M. (2023). Genome editing in Africa’s agriculture: An early take-off (3rd ed.). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA AfriCenter). https://www.isaaa.org
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and annexes (19 p.). https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service. (n.d.). Crop production summaries for Ethiopia. https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/countrysummary
United Nations Environment Programme. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). Ethiopia First Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Ethiopia_First%20BUR.pdf
Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) September (2010) https://www.g-fras.org/en/policy-templates/file/289
Annex 1. List of institutions and resource persons involved in the interview
SN | SECTOR | MINISTRY/DEPARTMENT/INSTITUTION/ |
1 | Research Institutes | Bio and Emerging Technology Institute (BETin) |
3 | Research Institutes | Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research |
17 | UNIVERSITIES | Addis Ababa University |
18 | UNIVERSITIES | Addis Ababa University (Institute of Biotechnology) |
22 | UNIVERSITIES | Arba Minch Univeristy |
23 | UNIVERSITIES | Mekele University |
24 | Regulatory Authority | Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) |
30 | Regulatory Authority | Ethiopian Agricultural Authority |
Annex 2: List of the major laboratory facilities/equipment that are available in four institutions
Lab facilities | Availability in each institution | |||
AAU | BETin | EIAR | EPA | |
Sanger type sequencer (ABI3730) | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Second generation Sequencer | Yes | Yes | No | No |
Bioinformatics tools | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Biosafety cabinet class 1 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Biosafety cabinet class 2 | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Fume hood | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Autoclaves | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Growth chambers | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Icemaker | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Thermocycler | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Realtime PCR machine | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Electrophoresis set | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
PCR image analyzer | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Deep freezer -80 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Ultracentrifuge | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Microfuge | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
CO2 incubator | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
ELISPOT readers | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
ELISA readers | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
MACS for cell separation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Filtration set for media | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Microtome | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
HPLC apparatus | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Spectrophotometer | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Protein Electrophoresis set | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Ultrasound homogenizer | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Liquid Nitrogen generator | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Add new comment