Secondary data (literature review) was gathered and assembled from published literature and institutional website databases while primary data was collected by a team of trained enumerators who visited the key institutions and conducted face to face interviews with key stakeholders. In special cases, an online link was used to share the questionnaire. Primary data collected through live interviews was captured using an online data kit (ODK) and stored at the Africa Harvest server. Data from these two sources (primary and secondary) were then analysed, synthesized and packaged giving detailed narratives in terms of the following:

1. Status of and biotech/GEd regulatory and policy frameworks. 

Components of the regulatory and policy framework in South Africa collected during the secondary and primary data were retrieved, gathered, assembled, synthesized and packaged into tables to give a perspective of the functionality and preparedness of South Africa to embrace and adopt GEd technologies.

2. Projects, crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and traits ready for commercialization and scaling.

Like regulatory and policy frameworks, biotech and particularly GEd projects, crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and traits including key stakeholders (partnerships) involved, and sources of funding were documented through secondary and primary data acquisitions. The synthesized and analysed data from GEd projects, crop, livestock, fisheries, forestry and traits were used to further:

1. identify emerging needs to address economic, social and environmental/climate benefits. 

2. provide information on the status of existing human and infrastructures capacities in GEd technologies in South Africa.

   1. Staple, Indigenous and Commercial crops that need improvement using GEd technology.

The data on GEd projects, crops and traits 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. 

3. Institutional capacity (human capital, laboratory and field infrastructure, equipment).

During primary data collection, respondents were asked questions on existing institutional capacities in terms of human capital, laboratory and field infrastructure, equipment to engage in GEd R&D, commercialization and scaling. This information was pooled together to give each institution its data on human capital and infrastructure capacity.

4. Stakeholder mapping.

Targeted sampling was employed, only selecting individuals knowledgeable and currently engaged in modern Agricultural Biotechnology/ GEd (regulating, policy, R&D and commercialization). Some of these key individuals were identified through 1) secondary data, published literature (scientists), 2) databases of institutional websites (regulators and scientists), and 3) referrals through institutional heads (regulators and scientists) or personal knowledge by the country PI. These individuals are 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 government departments/ministries and policymakers.

5. Database Systems and Database Management.

The consortium and sponsors of the project had technical backstopping meetings to develop appropriate data collection tools (Questionnaires) and platforms to support primary data collection. The questionnaires were tailor-made and specific to identified and mapped stakeholder categories, namely, regulatory, research, universities, private sector and government platforms and frameworks to produce data sets (data systems) that gauged South Africa’s preparedness (capabilities) or lack of it to fully embrace, engage and scale up GEd technologies. The data collection tools and platforms were pre-tested before use. 

6. Data synthesis and statistical analysis. 

Where appropriate (quantitative), data collected was synthesized and statistically analysed using the SPSS package.  Scatter plots were employed to map the projects, crops and traits in a continental interactive map.

7. Interactive map. 

An interactive map akin to that of the Agenda 2063 dashboard was developed. 

7. Status and Needs Assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities by Institution 

The studies identified the status and needs assessment of Biosafety Laboratory Facilities of the selected institutions, and the results are presented in Table 6 below.  The key infrastructure for carrying out GEd research and Development (laboratory, greenhouse and field trial farms) is present in all the selected institutions. The Criteria for determining the laboratory status for BSL-1 and BSL-2 Operations in the different institutions is presented in Annexure A. Limitations were mainly on the regulations, funding and GEd experts in most of the selected institutions. The importation of specialised equipment and sole supplier were avenues to speed up the procurement process. The studies revealed that 3 institutions are fully equipped, and they should be able to collaborate and work in consortiums to develop new products.

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

8. Analysis of Indigenous and Staple Crops, Livestock, Agroforestry, and Fisheries Varieties/ Breeds for Improvement Using GEd

South Africa has a wide diversity of indigenous and crops, livestock, agroforestry, and fisheries varieties/breeds that need improvement using GEd technology. 

Research and Development work is currently going on producing drought resistant table grapes and wheat, insect resistant sugar cane at the University of Stellenbosch while University of Witwatersrand is focussing on cassava (Vivier and Burger 2023; Campa and Lashbrooke 2024; Chatukuta and Rey 2020). In the agroforestry sector, researchers from the university of Pretoria FABI is collaborating with local and international partners to disrupt the LEAFY function of Eucalyptus (Elorriaga et al 2021).

Other Staple and Indigenous crops/Livestock/Forestry and Fisheries that need improvement using GEd technology are listed in Table 8 below with the trait to be improved ranging from agricultural productivity, reduction of post-harvest losses, climate adaptation to drought, pests and disease stress, nutrition security, diversified and healthy diets, and the socio-economic importance of the product. Improving the yields of these crops will result in South Africa’s food sovereignty, reducing the huge import bills goals for the country.

Table 7: Staple and Indigenous crops/Livestock/Forestry and Fisheries that need improvement using GEd technology

9. Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights and Benefit Sharing

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), including patents and Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR), protect genome-edited (GE) crops by granting exclusive rights to the inventors, thus encouraging innovation and recouping investment. South Africa currently lacks specific legislation for gene-edited crops, leading to an ambiguous regulatory environment, but Intellectual Property (IP) protection can be sought through patent law and Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) for new plant varieties, though a legal interpretation of the patent law's exclusion for "essentially biological processes" is still needed for gene editing. Genome edited crops could obtain protection for plant breeders’ rights, provided that the plant meets the requirements of protection, i.e. that it is new, distinct, uniform and stable (https://agriorbit.com/considering-the-legal-and-ip-implications-of-geneediting/#:~:text=But%20what%20of%20the%20IP,often%20applied%20to%20selective%20breeding). 

Organizations involved in intellectual property rights (IPR) and the protection of genome-edited crops include the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) for regional IP matters, Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), and government departments like the Department of Agriculture, Department of Science Technology and Innovation (DSTI), and the Department of Health. These departments have experience in agricultural biotechnology especially for GMO products.

10. Private Sector and Industries

In South Africa, private sector roles in crop genome editing applications encompass funding research and development, innovating new technologies and applications, forming public-private partnerships (PPPs) for trait transfer and product development, and commercializing gene-edited crops. These private companies focus on creating traits for crops like maize, sorghum, cotton, and soybean to enhance yield, quality, and sustainability, as seen in the long-term adoption of biotech crops in the country. While private investment is vital for commercialization, effective public-private partnerships (PPPs) are crucial to facilitate technology access for smallholder farmers and address institutional challenges.

The study revealed that most of the multinational companies carry out upstream research on the crops/livestock/ agroforestry or fisheries in their headquarters based in the United States or Europe and later send the finished product for downstream field trials and testing in Africa. These field trials studies are usually carried out with national research institutions.  Key players include multinational companies like Syngenta, Bayer, Corteva, BASF, Seedco and Limagrain, as well as local companies like Pannar Seed, Capstone Seeds, Rijk Zwaan, Agricol, and Alliance Seeds. Syngenta, BASF, Bayer and Corteva are involved in communications, advocacy for modern biotechnology regulation in South Africa.

11.  Analysis of Funding and Investment landscape 

There are very few players in the funding space for GEd research in South Africa. The major players are. 

Government: 

Presidential R1Billion PhD Programme: As part of the political support to support Science, Technology and Innovation in south Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced in 2023, a R1 billion investment, funded by the National Skills Fund, to establish a Presidential PhD Programme. The aim of the initiative is to to build critical skills in areas like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other priority sectors. The program will expose South Africa's brightest young minds to cutting-edge research at world-leading institutions and link their studies to large-scale research programs. (https://www.nrf.ac.za/nrf-hosts-successful-national-colloquium-to-set-the-stage-for-the-presidential-phd-programme-launch/).

South African National Research Foundation (NRF). The NRF funds infrastructure and equipment projects through various mechanisms, including the National Equipment Programme (NEP) for state-of-the-art research equipment, the Infrastructure Bridging Funding (IBF) for institutional financial risk on infrastructure, and by enabling access to national and global research infrastructure. The Research Infrastructure Platforms (RIPs) initiative also supports the development and management of key research infrastructures. GEd researchers in could have access to these  funds (https://www.nrf.ac.za/.).

The Department of Science, Technology and Innovation: This department funds research through its different programmes like the Research and Development support, Technology Innovation etc. (https://www.dsti.gov.za/).

The Technology Innovation Agency (TIA): TIA is a funding agency supported by the Department of Science and Innovation. The agency:

• Provides risk funding to enable the exploitation of technological innovation.

• Supports the commercialisation of industry enhancing technologies.

• Promotes innovation skills development initiatives between academic institutions and industry.

• Enacts innovation related programmes targeting specific groupings to provide access to specialised equipment, technical experts, and workspace support and

• Provide access to infrastructure, enabling innovators to develop new technologies.

Other sources of funding: The other funding sources are from competitive international grants like the European Union, Gates Foundation, GIZ, Trusts, the Industrial Development Corporation etc. Table 9 below summarises the funding agency and responsibilities.

Table 8: Funding Agencies for Genome Editing in South Africa

12. Stakeholder Map and Engagement for Critical Data and High Influence.

Several key stakeholders were identified and mapped in South Africa to obtain critical primary data and high influence on GEd adoption. 

Regulatory and other Government agencies: Members of the Executive council to implement the GMO and NBT regulation, Biosafety Soutth Africa and the registrar. There is a balance 50:50 male female in the Executive committee.

Universities and Teaching institutions: University of Stellenbosch; University of KwaZulu Natal; University of Pretoria; University of Cape Town, University of Free State and Witwatersrand University.

National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Centers: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and SASRI.

Private sector:Corteva Agriscience; Bayer; Syngenta, BASF, Pannar Seeds; Pioneer Seeds; South African National Seed Organization (Sansor), Fruit SA, Potato SA; South African sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI); Grain SA, Sorghum Trust, Maize Trust; South African Table Grapes Association.

Government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Department of Agriculture land and Rural Development (DALRRD); Department of Forestry Fisheries and Environment (DFFE); Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (DSTI); Department of Trade and Industries and Competition (DTIC).

These stakeholders were engaged when collecting primary data through live interviews using online data collection kit (ODK) and surveys through emailing of questionnaires. The list of the stakeholders is attached.

A comprehensive policy plan for genome editing in South Africa requires both short-term and long-term strategies. Short-term goals should focus on decoupling the GEd guidelines from the GMO Act, building capacity for research and development, and setting aside seed competitive grants to fund GEd projects. Long-term objectives include fostering innovation, investing in infrastructure and equipment, encouraging public -private partnerships, ensuring responsible use of the technology, and promoting its benefits while mitigating potential risks.

Based on the landscape studies, the following recommendations are made to ensure South Africa reaps the benefit of GEd technology.

• Regulatory frameworks: South Africa’s current GMO Act also regulates Genome edited products. The current regulatory stance creates a difficult path for the commercialization of genome-edited crops and dampens enthusiasm for technology within the country. The government should decouple the guidelines from the GMO Act based on scientific evidence.

• Capacity building: Investing in training and education to build local capacity in GEd research, development, and regulation is essential. More researchers should be encouraged to participate in the short term specialized CRISPR courses. Researchers in the GEd space should apply for PhD students to benefit from the Presidential R1b fund.

• Infrastructure and relevant equipment: The selected universities and research institutions have the basic molecular Biology laboratories that need to be upgraded to be able to carry out GEd research and innovation. The process will be faster at least three institutions are upgraded in 2025/26 with specialized high end infrastructure grants awarded by the NRF and the DSTI. 

• Funding of strategic GEd project and programs targeting national challenges. The Technology Innovation Agency has grants that could be used to fund strategic projects and GEd programs. 

• Promote Private Sector Participation by encouraging startup incubation programs in agricultural biotechnology and genome editing as well as starting biotech companies targeting public-private partnerships.  Universities and Research institutions must work together to ensure that the private sector is innovative and competitive.

• Networking: Researchers in South Africa should build their networks and collaborate with international experts in their field. By forming consortiums (e.g. EU funded projects) in executing projects, they will be able to access major funding and training opportunities for their research groups.

• Public participation and consultation: Engaging the public in decision-making processes is crucial for building trust and ensuring that GEd technologies are developed and used in a way that is socially acceptable and beneficial.

• Indigenous and Staple Crops, Livestock, Agroforestry, and Fisheries Varieties/ Breeds for Improvement Using GEd. Priority crops/livestock/agroforestry and fisheries that could be improved using GEd technology has been listed in this studies.

Abkallo, H., Arbuthnot, P., Auer, P., Berger, D.,Burger, J.,Chakauya, Concordet, C., Diabate, A., Donato, V., Groenewald, J., Guindo, A., Koekemoer, L., Nazare, F. Nolan, T, Okumu, F.,Orefuwa, E., Paemka, Prieto-Godino, L., Runo, R., Sadler, M, Tesfaye, K., Tripathi , L., Wondji, C. (2024).. Making genome editing a success story in Africa. Nat Biotechnol 42, 551–554. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02187-2.

Amelework AB, Bairu MW, Maema O, Venter SL and Laing M (2021) Adoption and Promotion of Resilient Crops for Climate Risk Mitigation and Import Substitution: A Case Analysis of Cassava for South African Agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:617783. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.617783

Bell, K (2023). South Africa Country Commercial Guide. International Trade Administration. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/south-africa-agricultural-sector#:~:text=South%20Africa%20has%20a%20market,developed%20poultry%20and%20egg%20industry.

Dijkerman, A (2022). Genome Editing in bread wheat using CRISPR/CAS9. MSc Thesis, University of Stellenbosch.https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/1607604d-c4af-4793-93fa-d7527214a863/content.

Campa, M., and Lashbrooke, J. (2024). CRISPR-based genome editing is now possible in fruit trees, including grapevine. South African fruit journal Dec/Jan 2024. https://www.safj.co.za/new-breeding-technologies-in-cultivar-development/.

Chatukuta, P. and Rey C. (2020). A cassava protoplast system for screening genes associated with the response to South African cassava mosaic virus. Virology Journal 17:184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-01453-4.

Dowd-Uribe, B., Rock, J., & Spreadbury, T. (2022). Characterizing funding for agricultural biotechnology research and development in Africa. The Mapping Biotechnologies in Africa Project. December 15, https://mbioproject.org/blog.

Dowd-Uribe, B., Rock, J., Spreadbury, T., Chiril, P., & Uminsky, D. (2024). Bridging the gap? Public–private partnerships and genetically modified crop development for smallholder farmers in Africa. Plants, People, Planet, 6(2), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10453.

Elorriaga, E.Klocko, A. L., Ma, C., Marc du Plessis, An, X., Myburg, A. A. and Strauss, S. H. (2021) Genetic containment in vegetatively propagated forest trees: CRISPR disruption of LEAFY function in Eucalyptus gives sterile indeterminate inflorescences and normal juvenile development. Plant Biotechnol J., https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13588.

FAOSTAT (2021) Food and Agriculture Organization Cropping Database [database on the Internet]. c2019 [cited 2021 Mar 08]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/

Fondong V, Rey C. (2028). Recent advances in the Improvement of Cassava. Recent Biotechnologica. https://www.intechopen.com/profiles/220455.

Gomez, M..A., Lin, Z.D., Moll, T., Chauhan, R.D., Hayden, L., Renninger, K., Beyene, G., Taylor, N.J., Carrington, J.C., Staskawicz, B.J. and Bart, R.S. (2018). Simultaneous CRISPR/ Cas9-mediated editing of cassava eIF4E isoforms nCBP-1 and nCBP-2 reduces cassava brown streak disease symptom severity and incidence. Plant Biotechnol. J., https://doi. org/10.1111/pbi.12987.

Gupta, D., Saini, A., van der Vyver, C., and Panda, S. (2024). Gene Editing: Paving the Way for Enhancing Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses-Mechanisms, Breakthroughs, and Future Prospects. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation43(11):3986-4002.

Kgatle, MG (2024). Genetic and mechanised innovations in SA maize production. South African Grain. (https://sagrainmag.co.za/2024/11/14/genetic-and-mechanised-innovations-in-sa-maize-production/#:~:text=South%20Africa%20produces%2015%20million,and%20further%20precision%20agriculture%20innovations).

Majola,N, Gerrano, A., Shimelis H. (2021). Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea [L.] Verdc.) Production, Utilisation and Genetic Improvement in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agronomy 2021, 11(7), 1345; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071345.

Ngure G., Karembu M. (2023). Genome Editing in Africa’s Agriculture: An Early Take-off. 3rd Edition. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA AfriCenter), Nairobi Kenya.

Orr A, Mwema C, Gierend A and Nedumaran S. (2016). Sorghum and Millets in Eastern and Southern Africa. Facts, Trends and Outlook. Working Paper Series No. 62. ICRISAT Research Program, Markets, Institutions and Policies. Patancheru 502 324, Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 76 pp.

Ramulifho E.(2021) Functional characterisation of resistance gene orthologues in cassava using gene editing. WITS University PhD Thesis.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Smit, H. A., Tolmay, V. L., Barnard, A., Jordaan, J. P., Koekemoer, F. P., Otto, W. M., … Tolmay, J. P. C. (2010). An overview of the context and scope of wheat (Triticum aestivum) research in South Africa from 1983 to 2008. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 27(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2010.10639973.

South Africa’s Genetically Modified Organisms Act No. 15 GMO Act of (1997). Act No. 15 of 1997. (https://www.gov.za/documents/genetically-modified-organisms-act-0).

South Africa’s Genetically Modified Organisms amended Act of (2006). Act No. 23 of 2006. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a23-060.pdf.

South Africa’s Genetically Modified Organisms amended Act of (2021). Government gazette 667 of 28th January 2021 44115. https://www.dalrrd.gov.za/images/Branches/AgricProducHealthFoodSafety/genetic-resources/biosafety/regulations-made-interms-of-section-20-of-the-gmo-act-28-jan-2021-amendment-of-regulation-9.pdf.

van der Merwe, J. M., Vink, N., & Cloete, K. (2024). The competitiveness of South African table grape exports in the European markets: Threats from Peru and Chile. Agrekon, 63(1–2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2024.2364782.

Vivier, M. and Burger, J. (2023). Grapevine CRISPR-2: first applications for virus resistance and drought tolerance. https://winetechlibrary.co.za/crispr-2-first-applications-for-virus-resistance-and-drought-tolerance/.

USDA (2023) South Africa: Agricultural Biotechnology Annual https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/south-africa-agricultural-biotechnology-annual-7.

Annex 1. List of institutions involved