3.1. Signatory and Ratification of Multilateral Food and Environment Treaties / Agreements

Ghana is a signatory to numerous Multilateral Environmental and Food Agreements or Treaties, including the Codex-Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Cartagena Protocol, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, Access and Benefit Sharing, etc. (Table 1).

The CAC, often called the Food Code, is jointly run by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) to develop international food safety and quality standards. Ghana became a member of CAC in 1971, and actively participates in Codex meetings, committees, and standard-setting processes. The Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) serves as the National Codex Contact Point, coordinating Codex activities in the country. Being a Codex member obliges Ghana to harmonize its food safety regulations with internationally accepted standards. This provides an important framework for evaluating food products derived from modern biotechnologies such as genome editing, ensuring that they meet both safety and international trade requirements. This strengthens Ghana’s position in adopting genome editing, since Codex has developed guidelines on food safety assessment of foods derived from modern biotechnology, which Ghana, as a signatory, can use to guide local regulatory decision-making.

Ghana signed the UNFCCC in 1992 and ratified it in 1995. Ghana signed and ratified the UN CBD in 1992. Ghana is a member of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, Access and Benefit Sharing, which it signed in 2012 and ratified in 2019.  

3.2. National Regulatory Framework

The competent authority responsible for issuing final authorizations for GMO and genome editing (GEd) products in Ghana is the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), formerly known as the National Biosafety Council (NBC) from 1999 to 2015. The NBA operates under the mandate of the Biosafety Act, 2011 (Act 831) and Legislative Instrument (L.I.) 2383.
The Biosafety Act was enacted to ensure an adequate level of protection in the safe development, transfer, handling, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) resulting from biotechnology, particularly where such activities may pose risks to human health and the environment. The NBA became operational in 2015, with the primary role of leading the implementation of the Act’s provisions, and of establishing a transparent and predictable process for reviewing and making decisions on GMOs and related activities. The chief executive officer of the NBA under the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation is the authority in charge of handling applications of GMO and GEd products. However, there is a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), appointed by the Board of NBA with specific functions which include: 

1. Act as the national advisory body on matters concerning or related to genetic modification or organisms. 

2. Carry out risk assessment and audit of applications.

3. Advise, on request or on its own accord, the Minister and through the Board and the Minister.

4. advise the Ministries and appropriate bodies on matters concerning genetic modification of organisms including: 

5.  aspects relating to the introduction and development of genetically modified organisms into the environment. 

6. proposals for specific activities or projects concerning genetic modification of organisms. 

7. aspects concerning the contained use of genetically modified organisms.

8.  the importation and exportation of genetically modified organisms; and 

9.  proposed regulations and written guidelines. 

The NBA is responsible for laboratory/facility certification, certification/approval/authorization of research/product development, contained or confined use, introduction into the environment, placing on the market, import/export, transit, and product registration.

1. Regulations & Guidelines 

Ghana’s regulatory framework for handling and regulating GMO and GEd products are the Biosafety Act (Act 831) 2011, Biosafety Guidelines for Handling Requests for Use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in Ghana 2016, and the Biosafety (Management of Biotechnology) Regulations 2019 and Guidelines of Genome Editing and Gene stacking (Table 2). The Ghana Biosafety Regulatory system is a coordinated framework with a coordinating Agency, the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), whiles monitoring and enforcement issues are handled by the existing regulatory agencies, including the following bodies: 

1. The Food and Drug Authority (FDA)

2. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

3. The Customs Service

4. Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate (PPRSD)

5. Veterinary Service Directorate (VSD)

6. Ghana Standards Authority (GSA)

7. Local Government Act (LGA)

8. Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA)

9. Municipal/District Assemblies

Table 1: Status of Country Participation in Key Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

Table 2: Regulatory and Institutional Landscape for Genome Editing (GEd) in Ghana

3.3. Socio-economic considerations for decision-making

In Ghana, socio-economic considerations play a central role in shaping decision-making around genome editing. One of the foremost priorities is food and nutrition security, as the technology holds potential to deliver high-yielding, climate-resilient, and nutrient-enriched crops that can address the country’s persistent challenges of malnutrition and food shortages. At the same time, the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, who form the backbone of Ghana’s agricultural sector, must be carefully weighed. Decisions about genome editing need to ensure that seed affordability, accessibility, and intellectual property arrangements do not disadvantage these farmers but instead enhance their productivity, income, and resilience. Trade and market access also feature prominently, given Ghana’s status as a member of many international organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Aligning genome editing applications with Codex standards is vital to safeguard international market opportunities for key exports such as cocoa, cashew, and horticultural crops, while preventing potential trade barriers.

Public perception and acceptance form another crucial consideration. The legacy of anti-GMO debates in Ghana has shown that consumer trust, cultural values, and civil society advocacy significantly influence biotechnology adoption. Thus, transparent communication, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and sustained public education will be critical for building legitimacy and trust in genome-edited products. Environmental sustainability is also central, as genome editing offers opportunities to reduce agrochemical use and develop pest- and disease-resistant varieties, but decisions must also account for potential ecological risks such as biodiversity loss or unintended long-term impacts.

Equity and access represent another layer of socio-economic concern. Policymakers must guard against scenarios where only large-scale commercial farmers or multinational corporations reap the benefits of genome editing, leaving smallholders marginalized. Finally, governance and policy coherence will determine the extent to which genome editing is successfully integrated into Ghana’s agricultural system. Effective implementation of the Biosafety Act, alignment with national frameworks such as the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP) and the National Agricultural Investment Plans, and consistency with continental strategies like the AUDA-NEPAD and the Malabo Declaration are all critical to ensuring that genome editing contributes meaningfully to national development goals. In sum, Ghana’s socio-economic considerations for genome editing revolve around balancing food security, farmer livelihoods, trade competitiveness, sustainability, equity, and public trust within a coherent policy and governance framework.

Social, human, culture and traditions and how they could advance or hinder adoption of GEd Ghana

In Ghana, social and cultural factors are deeply intertwined with agricultural practices and can play a decisive role in shaping the acceptance or resistance to genome editing. Agriculture is not merely an economic activity but a way of life, embedded in community identity, traditions, and social relations. For many rural households, farming practices are inherited across generations, and seed-saving, seed exchange, and communal farming traditions are culturally significant. These customs can both advance and hinder genome editing adoption. On one hand, strong community networks and farmer cooperatives could serve as channels for knowledge sharing and rapid diffusion of new technologies, especially if genome-edited crops are shown to reduce labor, enhance yields, and improve food security. On the other hand, cultural attachment to traditional seed varieties and skepticism toward “modern” or “foreign” technologies may slow down acceptance, particularly where communities fear loss of seed sovereignty or dependence on external seed suppliers.

Human and social factors, such as literacy levels, trust in institutions, and access to information, also shape adoption pathways. Low levels of scientific literacy in many farming communities can create vulnerability to misinformation, which was evident during earlier controversies around genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Civil society groups and religious institutions in Ghana, including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, have previously voiced strong opposition to GMOs, citing ethical, health, and cultural concerns. These experiences suggest that without transparent communication, inclusive dialogue, and sensitivity to ethical and cultural worldviews, genome editing may face similar opposition. At the same time, Ghana’s relatively youthful population, increasing urbanization, and expanding use of digital platforms present opportunities for science communication and public engagement that can demystify genome editing and build trust in its applications.

Traditions around food and diet further influence perceptions of agricultural innovations. Staple crops such as cassava, yam, maize, and plantain carry cultural importance and are tied to rituals, festivals, and identity. Any intervention in these crops, whether for nutritional enhancement or resilience, must therefore be framed in ways that respect cultural food values. Conversely, the cultural centrality of these crops could become a powerful driver of adoption if genome editing demonstrably secures their availability against threats like pests, diseases, or climate stress.

In essence, Ghana’s social and cultural context presents a double-edged dynamic: traditions, values, and social networks could facilitate acceptance of genome editing if the technology is aligned with community needs, ethical standards, and food traditions. Yet these same dynamics could also hinder adoption if stakeholders perceive genome editing as eroding cultural autonomy, threatening seed sovereignty, or conflicting with religious and moral values. Building legitimacy for genome editing in Ghana will therefore depend on inclusive, culturally sensitive, and transparent engagement that bridges scientific innovation with the lived realities of farming communities.

3.4.  Analysis of Genome Editing Programs and Projects

Ghana currently has 2 ongoing and 2 set to start soon GEd projects on crops. Many scientists across different institutions and laboratories have also expressed interest in genome editing to improve crop traits (Table 3). Majority of the labs have now initiated development and optimization of genetic transformation and regeneration protocols. Though GMO products are at different stages of development in Ghana, the original transformation events did not occur in Ghana. The traits were either introgressed into local cultivars, or the cultivars were sent outside the country for the transformation event. With the advent of genome editing and the interest expressed among scientists in different institutions, researchers are actively embarking on optimizing transformation and regeneration protocols to pave the way for successful locally embarked genome editing processes for crop improvement.

Table 3: Genome Editing Projects and Programs in Ghana

3.5.  Analysis of Human Capital and Institutional Capacity

Analysis of Human Capital and Institutional Capacity for Genome Editing in Ghana

Existing Capacity

Ghana has a growing pool of scientists trained in plant breeding, molecular biology, and biotechnology, with institutions such as the University of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) providing relevant training and research platforms. The National Biosafety Authority (NBA) provides a regulatory framework for biotechnology, while Ghana’s participation in regional initiatives (e.g., African Biosciences networks, AUDA-NEPAD programmes) facilitates exposure to genome editing tools and biosafety practices. Collaborative projects with international partners have introduced elements of genome editing technologies, and a few researchers have short-term training in CRISPR-Cas and related methods. Notable among the Scientists are the following:

Dr. Andrews Sarkodie Appiah, Manager of the Plant Disease Research Centre (PDRC) at BNARI, under Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), specifically working at the Biotechnology Centre in Accra. 

Dr. Samuel Mahama, Senior Research Scientist, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Supports deployment of genome editing to achieve food self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on agro-chemicals in Ghana's staple crops.

Dr. Seth Manteaw, Affiliation: Director, Institute of Science, Technology and Information (CSIR). 

Prof. Eric Yirenkyi Danquah, a plant geneticist at the University of Ghana, is the founding director of WACCI (West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement) and former director of the Biotech Centre. His work in molecular genetics and biotechnology for crop improvement provides leadership and capacity-building momentum. He offers distinguished academic leadership in biotechnology in Ghana.

Dr. Francis Tanam Djankpa, Senior Lecturer in Molecular and Cellular Sciences, University of Cape Coast (UCC). He is a vocal advocate for adopting genome editing in Ghana to enhance crop resilience and agricultural productivity. 

Dr. Samuel Acheampong, a lecturer, and researcher at the Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Cape Coast (UCC). Leading CRISPR-based gene editing research—targeting the sweet potato genome to enhance beta-carotene (pro–vitamin A) content and increase yield.

Dr. Joseph Opoku Gakpo, Alliance for Science Ghana, Joynews, Co-founder (with Samuel Acheampong) of HavAfric, arguably Africa’s first CRISPR-seed startup.

Capacity Gaps/Needs

• Specialized Skills: Limited number of researchers with hands-on expertise in genome editing tools, bioinformatics pipelines, and functional genomics.
• Infrastructure: Laboratories are under-equipped for advanced genome editing (e.g., lack of next-generation sequencing platforms, high-throughput genotyping tools).
• Funding and Sustainability: Inadequate domestic funding for long-term research projects in genome editing; heavy reliance on external donors.
• Regulatory Expertise: While a biosafety framework exists, regulatory capacity to evaluate genome-edited products (distinct from GMOs) is still limited
• Extension Linkages: Weak institutional arrangements for translating lab-based innovations into breeding pipelines and farmer-ready varieties.

Knowledge Transfer Gaps

• Research-to-Industry Linkages: Limited collaboration between research institutions and private seed companies hampers commercialization of genome-edited products.
• Extension Services: Weak capacity of extension agents to understand and communicate new biotechnologies to farmers, leading to slow adoption.
• Regional Collaboration: Insufficient leveraging of South-South partnerships with African countries that have advanced genome editing programs (e.g., Nigeria, South Africa).
• Public Awareness: Low awareness among policymakers, farmers, and the general public about genome editing compared to GMOs, creating communication gaps and potential mistrust.

3.5.1. Research, Development and Academic Institutions

Key Institutions & Their Roles

University of Ghana – Biotechnology Research Centre (Biotech Centre)

Established in 2007 under DFID/NRI, this Centre supports molecular studies—initially focused on diseases such as coconut lethal yellowing and cassava mosaic, among others. It offers MPhil and PhD programmes in biotechnology, particularly in plant and animal sciences, and supports research in genetics and molecular biology—creating a strong base for genome editing capacity.

West African Centre for Cell Biology of Infectious Pathogens (WACCBIP). A World Bank African Centres of Excellence initiative based at University of Ghana, Legon. Equipped with facilities for genome sequencing, bioinformatics, flow cytometry, confocal microscopy, and high-performance computing—capable of providing genome editing and molecular biology support

University of Cape Coast (UCC) – Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology

The site of Ghana’s CRISPR-mediated gene-editing project. The project targets increased β-carotene (pro-vitamin A) content and yield in sweet potatoes.

CSIR — Crops Research Institute (CRI) & Plant Genetic Resources Research Institute (PGRRI). CRI (Fumesua near Kumasi): Equipped with modern biotechnology labs, screenhouses, NIRS equipment (including β-carotene measurement), seed processing, irrigation infrastructure, and training facilities—supporting molecular research and crop screening. 

PGRRI (Bunso): Alongside CRI, involved in a 2023 multi-authored review on CRISPR-Cas9 applications in crop improvement, illustrating their engagement in genome editing research. 

Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine (KCCR), at KNUST, KCCR hosts BSL-2/3 labs, next-gen sequencers (Illumina iSeq100, MiSeq), Sanger sequencer, and strong data management systems. Although primarily focused on biomedical research, these facilities could support genome editing in pathogens or relevant molecular studies.

Training & Capacity-Building Initiatives

In 2021, a workshop on genome editing principles (using zebrafish as model) took place at the University of Ghana, organized under the TReND in Africa platform and supported by IBRO. The AUDA-NEAPD has in collaboration with the Ministry of Science and Technology and CSIR has organized several training workshops for policy makes, scientists, and journalists.These workshops help familiarize local scientists with CRISPR technologies and experimental design.

3.5.2. Training and Professional Development

Training and professional development for genome editing in Ghana has gained increasing momentum in recent years, reflecting both national commitment and continental support for building scientific capacity. At the domestic level, the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation (MESTI) with support from AUDA-NEPAD has played a central role in organizing targeted workshops. In March 2024, MESTI convened a two-day training for policymakers and regulators to strengthen their understanding of genome editing applications and the governance systems required to oversee them. Later in September of the same year, a similar two-day workshop focused on “Product Development with Genome Editing” was held for scientists, equipping participants with deeper insights into research and product development processes. These efforts were complemented by an in-country workshop jointly organized with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and AUDA-NEPAD, which emphasized both the potential of genome editing for agriculture and the importance of managing associated risks.

In addition to government-led efforts, international collaborations have provided hands-on learning opportunities. In 2021, the University of Ghana hosted a practical workshop organized by TReND in Africa with support from the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO). Using zebrafish as a model organism, the training introduced Ghanaian scientists to fundamental principles and experimental approaches in genome editing. Similarly, CSIR in 2023 convened a stakeholder validation workshop in Accra to develop Ghana’s National Genome Editing Communication Strategy and Action Plan, aimed at improving public engagement and communication around the technology.

Ghanaian scientists have also benefited from regional and continental programs. In 2020, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), in collaboration with the Cornell Alliance for Science and the University of Ghana’s West Africa Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI), conducted one of the earliest genome editing training programs on the continent. More recently, Ghanaian researchers have participated in the African Plant Breeding Academy’s (AfPBA) specialized CRISPR training courses, coordinated by UC Davis, UC Berkeley’s Innovative Genomics Institute, and partners such as IITA and CIFOR-ICRAF. The first cohort of this multi-year training was launched in 2023, followed by a second class in 2024 in which Ghana was represented by Samuel Amiteye of the Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture Research Institute (BNARI) at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission. The AfPBA courses combine intensive in-person sessions in Nairobi with mentorship and follow-up support, enabling participants to establish genome editing capacity in their home institutions.

Together, these initiatives reflect a growing ecosystem of professional development in Ghana, where policymakers, regulators, scientists, and communicators are gaining the skills required to harness genome editing responsibly. They also highlight the importance of partnerships—both local and international—in equipping Ghana with the technical expertise, regulatory understanding, and communication strategies necessary for advancing genome editing research and applications.

Table 4: Overview of Training Programmes on Genome Editing

Ghana’s universities such as University of Ghana and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology offer diversified MSc and PhD programs in plant breeding, molecular biology and biotechnology (Table 5). Institutional frameworks and alignment of programs on gene-editing could increase the championing of the technology.

Table 5: Universities Offering trainings on Biotechnology and GEd related courses

3.6. Analysis of Infrastructure and Equipment 

Several institutions have been listed as active in GEd projects with varying level of human and infrastructural capacities.

3.6.1.   Universities

Several Ghanaian universities are involved in genome editing research and training, particularly in agricultural applications (Table 6). The University of Cape Coast is leading research on a gene-edited sweet potato with increased beta carotene, while the University of Ghana has hosted workshops on genome editing principles using zebrafish as a model. The West African Centre for Crop Improvement, based at the University of Ghana, also collaborates on genome editing training for agricultural applications.

Specific universities and their involvement are:

University of Cape Coast: Is researching a gene-edited sweet potato to increase beta carotene content, using CRISPR-Cas9 technology. 

University of Ghana: Has hosted workshops on genome editing principles, including one focused on zebrafish research. The West African Centre for Crop Improvement (WACCI), based at the University of Ghana, is also involved in training on genome editing for agricultural applications. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST): The Kumasi Centre for Collaborative Research in Tropical Medicine, which is part of KNUST, is also involved in genome editing research.

Table 6: Status and Needs Assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities by Universities

3.6.2.   Research institutions

Ghana has several national agricultural and forestry research organizations/institutes (NAROs/NARIs) (Table 7). However, the lab facilities at these NAROs/NARIs not well funded and lack certain specialized equipment like high-throughput DNA sequencers and/or bogged down with bureaucratic procurement laws (Table 7).

Table 7: Status and Needs Assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities by Research Institutions

3.7 Analysis of Indigenous and Staple Crops for Improvement Using GEd 

Ghana has a number of staples, indigenous and commercial crops identified during this Assignment that potentially be improved through GEd interventions (Table 8). These prioritized crops are highlighted in terms of trait targets and socio-economic relevance (agricultural productivity, reduction of post-harvest losses, climate adaptation, food and nutrition security, diversified and healthy diets).

Table 8: Priority Crops for Genome Editing Application

3.8.  Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit Sharing

In Ghana, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are managed under a structured institutional framework, involving government agencies, regulatory bodies, and international affiliations. The main organizations include:

Registrar-General’s Department (RGD)

The primary national authority responsible for administering intellectual property rights in Ghana. The Department handles patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyright registration, and geographical indications. It operates under the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department.

The Copyright Office: It is under the RGD and manages copyright and related rights. The office works closely with the Ghana Copyright Society (COSGA) and other collective management organizations.

Plant Breeders’ Rights Office: It is at the Registrar-General’s Department, linked to PVP Act 2020 and administers plant variety protection (PVP) in accordance with Ghana’s Plant Variety Protection Act, 2020 (Act 1050). It Supports breeders in obtaining exclusive rights over new plant varieties. Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) ensures standardization and quality control of goods and services. GSA plays a role in protecting trademarks, certification marks, and geographical indications through standards compliance. 

Food and Drugs Authority (FDA-Ghana): FDA regulates food, drugs, cosmetics, and biotechnology products, ensuring IP-related claims (e.g., brand names, product origin) meet safety and authenticity requirements.

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR): CSIR is Ghana’s leading research institution, being both a user and beneficiary of IPRs, especially patents and plant breeders’ rights. The CSIR works with government and international partners to commercialize research outputs.

The Ministry of Justice & Attorney-General’s Department provides legal backing for IPR enforcement and oversees Ghana’s compliance with international treaties.

International and Regional Affiliations

• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): Ghana is a member, aligning its IP laws with international standards.
• African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO): Ghana is a contracting state, enabling it to process patents, trademarks, and designs through ARIPO.
• World Trade Organization (WTO): Ghana complies with the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights).
• UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants): Ghana acceded in 2021 to support its Plant Variety Protection law.

Regarding IPR issues in GMOs and GEd activities, there’s no record of Ghana’s Registrar-General’s Department (RGD), Plant Breeders’ Rights Office, Ghana Standards Authority (GSA), or Food and Drugs Authority (FDA-Ghana) specifically dealing with IPR cases related to GMOs, Bt crops, or genome editing. Most of Ghana’s actions in biotechnology so far have centred on regulatory approval, biosafety oversight, and commercialization of products—rather than patent or IP litigation.

Linkage to Nagoya Protocol implementation and national Access and Benefit Sharing laws + Kuala Lumpur on liability and redress mechanism 

1. Nagoya Protocol (Access and Benefit Sharing of Genetic Resources)

Ghana is a party to the Nagoya Protocol. Ghana signed the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) and ratified it in 2012 (entered into force for Ghana in October 2014). Implementation is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology (MEST). Ghana has developed national ABS regulations and measures to operationalize access and benefit sharing, though full enforcement and institutionalization are still evolving.

2. National ABS Laws / Implementation

Ghana has incorporated ABS principles into its Environmental Protection Agency Act and biodiversity-related policies. The EPA serves as the National Focal Point for ABS. Ghana has prepared draft regulations on ABS, aligning with its Nagoya obligations, although practical implementation (permits, monitoring, benefit-sharing contracts) has been slow. ABS issues also intersect with the Forestry Commission and CSIR, especially in relation to genetic resources for agriculture, forestry, and medicinal plants.

3. Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress (under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety)

Ghana is not a Party as of 2025.The Supplementary Protocol, adopted in 2010, establishes international rules on liability and redress for damage caused by living modified organisms (LMOs). Ghana is a Party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2003), and has enacted the Biosafety Act (2011) to regulate GMOs. However, Ghana has not signed or ratified the Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress.

In Ghana, IPR related to modern biotechnology have been addressed to a large extent, though the level of management varies between genetically modified (GM) projects and GEd initiatives. For modern biotechnology, the most notable example is the Bt cowpea project. Here, IPR issues were managed through a royalty-free, humanitarian license facilitated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF). The trait package (Bt/nptII) was donated under terms that allowed Ghanaian seed companies and farmers to access the improved varieties without paying royalties. This arrangement ensured that ownership, licensing, and stewardship considerations were resolved before the product was released, providing a model for how IPR can be handled in agricultural biotechnology.

At the institutional and national level, Ghana also has enabling frameworks for IPR management. Research organizations such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and universities, including the University of Cape Coast (UCC), operate formal IP policies in line with national legislation. Legal provisions such as the Patents Act, 2003 (Act 657), the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690), and more recently the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2020 (Act 1050), provide avenues for protecting biotechnological innovations and plant varieties. These policies and legal tools offer the foundation for securing IPR in the biotechnology space.

For genome editing, Ghana has made progress by developing guidelines under the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) that cover both gene editing and gene stacks. This shows a readiness to manage IPR and regulatory considerations in anticipation of emerging products. However, there are currently no commercial genome-edited products in the country, and as such, project-level IPR management in this area remains largely untested. In summary, Ghana has demonstrated the ability to address IPR issues effectively in GM projects, while in the case of genome editing, the guidelines exist but implementation is still at an infancy stage

IPR are enforced in Ghana through the courts. A recent case between CopyGhana and the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA) illustrates how IPR are actively protected in Ghana. CopyGhana, a collective management organization mandated under the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690) and its regulations, sued UPSA for allowing unauthorized photocopying of books and learning materials on its campus without obtaining a reprographic license. After years of non-compliance, the High Court ruled in May 2025 that UPSA had infringed copyright and was liable not only for direct copying but also for unauthorized reproductions by students and copy shops operating on its premises. The court upheld CopyGhana’s authority to issue licenses and ordered UPSA to compensate rightsholders for unpaid fees dating back to 2004, in addition to legal costs. The court also imposed a perpetual injunction preventing further unlicensed copying. This case demonstrates the effectiveness of Ghana’s legal and institutional frameworks in enforcing IPR, highlighting that violations, even in educational and research contexts, are taken seriously. It also underscores the role of collective management organizations in safeguarding the rights of authors and publishers while ensuring that institutions comply with licensing obligations. Overall, the judgment reflects Ghana’s commitment to balancing access to knowledge with the protection of creators’ rights.

Ghana has developed a comprehensive legal and institutional framework to protect the rights of inventors, creators, and businesses. Intellectual property rights in the country are upheld through various laws, including the Copyright Act, 2005, Patents Act, 2003, Trademarks Act, 2004, Industrial Designs Act, 2003 and Plant Variety Protection Act, 2020. These national laws are reinforced by Ghana's participation in key international agreements, such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. As a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Ghana demonstrates its commitment to promoting and safeguarding innovation and creativity.

Copyright in Ghana is governed by the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690), which provides protection for a wide range of creative works, including literary, musical, and artistic works, as well as audiovisual productions, sound recordings, computer software, broadcasts, and films. Patent protection in Ghana is governed by the Patents Act, 2003 (Act 657), which provides inventors with exclusive rights to their inventions for a defined period, provided certain criteria are met. Trademark registration and protection in Ghana are governed by the Trademarks Act, 2004 (Act 664). Industrial designs in Ghana are protected under the Industrial Designs Act, 2003 (Act 660). The Plant Variety Protection Act, 2020 (Act 1050), was introduced to grant intellectual property rights to breeders of new plant varieties, providing a legal framework that supports the development and protection of innovative crop varieties.

3.9. Analysis of Private Sector Participation

Ghana's private sector has begun to play an active (Table 9), though still emerging, role in genome editing (GEd) and modern biotechnology supporting trait development, bio-input innovation, and regulatory engagement. Ghana’s private sector is building capacity and infrastructure for genome-editing through diagnostics, startup innovation, trait development, and regulatory collaboration. Key players like Yemaachi Biotech, university incubator teams, and consortia involving Alliance for Science Ghana are leading the charge. As regulatory guidelines mature, private sector involvement in training and commercializing GEd products is expected to increase. Several private seed companies operate in Ghana, including M&B Seeds and Agricultural Services, Heritage Seeds, and Seed Co. West & Central Africa. These companies play a vital role in the agricultural sector by producing and distributing seeds for various crops like maize, rice, and cowpeas. They also engage in research and development, and some work directly with smallholder farmers.

The Public–Private Partnership Act, 2020 (Act 1039) provides a clear and structured legal and regulatory environment for PPP projects in Ghana. It offers great protection and certainty for private investors, which is crucial for attracting both domestic and foreign capital for large-scale public projects. The Government of Ghana actively encourages and promotes PPP arrangements as a key strategy for driving national development. Recognizing the importance of leveraging private sector investment, expertise, and innovation to complement public resources, successive administrations have prioritized PPPs in critical sectors such as infrastructure, industry, and agriculture. Notably, the previous government introduced several flagship initiatives anchored on PPP principles, including the One District, One Factory (1D1F) programme, which sought to stimulate district-level industrialization by facilitating collaboration between the state and private investors. Through such initiatives, government provides policy direction, incentives, and enabling infrastructure, while the private sector mobilizes capital and manages operations, thereby creating jobs, enhancing value addition, and contributing to economic growth.

Table 9: Overview of Genome Editing Stakeholders and Activities in the Private Sector

3.10. Analysis of Funding and Investment landscape 

Ghana’s genome editing research landscape seemed to be externally driven and donor-dependent, with major inputs from the Gates Foundation, USAID – Feed the Future, CGIAR-Trust Fund and private sectot, led by Corteva, and Bayer (Table 10). To ensure sustainability, increased national funding through Ghana’s National Research Fund (NRF-Ghana) is critical in scaling PPP models that link global technology developers with Ghanaian research institutions and key stakeholders. To date, NRF has not allocated dedicated funding to genome editing (GEd) research in Ghana.