{"id":{"repo_id":"cape-town","oai_identifier":"oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/4487"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cape-town/oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/4487","repository":{"repo_id":"cape-town","name":"University of Cape Town","base_url":"https://open.uct.ac.za/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda","abstract":"This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol.","abstract_html":"This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mutesasira, Peter Davis"],"institution":"Institute of Marine and Environmental Law","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2014,"date_issued":"2014-07-30","date_published":"2014-07-30","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:01Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mutesasira, Peter Davis"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-07-30T18:02:35Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-07-30T18:02:35Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2014-07-30"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.department","label":"Dc Publisher Department","values":["Institute of Marine and Environmental Law"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cape Town"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Master Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["LLM"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Mutesasira, Peter Davis"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-07-30T18:02:35Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-07-30T18:02:35Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2014-07-30"],"dc:description.abstract":["This study makes a comparative analysis of the current biosafety legislation in South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime in Uganda. A set of common characteristics and components in biosafety regulatory systems with reference to related provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety were used. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) especially in agriculture has produced a new range of governance challenges in the fields of environmental safety and human health. The regulation of modern biotechnology in Africa is still in its infancy. Despite this, legislation is urgently required to regulate modern biotechnology. The study assessed how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is implemented by South Africa and Uganda. The study revealed that though the Cartagena Protocol has gone some way in regulating modern biotechnology, its implementation in countries such as South Africa and Uganda has not resulted in the harmonization of the domestic regulatory process. On the national level, the study noted that the biosafety legislation of South Africa and the interim biosafety regulatory regime of Uganda do not fully comply with the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. This is mainly because each country has taken a different approach in implementing the protocol depending on its domestic priorities, imperatives and position in the global agricultural market. Finally, the study made recommendations on possible ways in which South Africa and Uganda can coordinate and harmonize their national biosafety regulatory systems. These will enable the two biosafety regulatory systems to become more compliant with the provisions of the protocol."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/11427/4487"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher.department":["Institute of Marine and Environmental Law"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cape Town"],"dc:title":["The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A comparative analysis of the domestic implementation in South Africa and Uganda"],"dc:type":["Master Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Masters"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["LLM"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:23:01Z"}