Legislative Turf War Unfolds Over New Plant Protection Regime

Legislative Turf War Unfolds Over New Plant Protection Regime

Nov 29 , 2025. By YITBAREK GETACHEW ( FORTUNE STAFF WRITER )

Federal lawmakers are preparing to vote on one of the most essential overhauls of the country’s plant protection and quarantine system in over 50 years. The bill, discussed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agricultural Affairs on November 26, 2025, seeks to align the country's regulations with international standards and could fundamentally reshape how plants, seeds, and biological materials are imported and monitored.

As federal lawmakers review the most ambitious overhaul of its plant protection and quarantine framework in over half a century, a growing institutional rift is threatening to derail the process.

A dispute raged over a contentious reallocation of regulatory powers between the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Ethiopian Agriculture Authority, two federal agencies whose mandates intersect on matters ranging from biosafety to invasive species and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The draft legislation, now in the final stages of parliamentary review, is intended to modernise the plant quarantine system and align it with international phytosanitary protocols, including the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

The bill sets out comprehensive provisions for pest risk analysis, import and export controls, phytosanitary certification, and the commercialisation of pest management tools.

However, EPA officials contend that the bill encroaches on areas explicitly within their legal jurisdiction under existing Council of Ministers’ regulations, particularly those governing biosafety, GMO oversight, and invasive alien species. They argue that the draft reassigns longstanding responsibilities such as approving imports of genetically modified materials and managing environmental risks from alien species to the Agricultural Authority, creating legal inconsistencies and operational redundancies.

Addisu Tibebu, head of the EPA’s Environmental Crime Protection & Inspection Desk, warned MPs during a November 26, 2025, hearing that several articles in the bill were “almost word-for-word” replications of EPA mandates. He was joined by EPA’s Ecosystem Director, Terresa Chemeda, who flagged the duplication as a recipe for blurred accountability. They fear the draft could undermine Ethiopia’s compliance with global biosafety commitments, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, for which the EPA serves as the designated authority.

“Checking for genetic modification is our mandate, ensuring biosafety is our responsibility,” said Addisu, demanding clarification.

Officials of the Agriculture Ministry dissented. According to Teklu Baissa, the Ministry's plant protection and control legal adviser, who has assisted in preparing the draft, the document was designed to avoid any conflicting mandates. He argued that federal agencies should operate in harmony and that any overlap would be corrected.

However, EPA officials have raised concerns beyond genetic modification. They fear that provisions governing import permits and phytosanitary certifications also repeat existing biosafety rules. The bill requires imported plants to be verified as safe through research and risk analysis, accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the exporting country and a release permit from the agricultural authority. Items classified as restricted will need import permits, and re-exported materials should secure a new certificate if repackaged.

EPA officials argue these layers introduce duplication and confusion.

Addisu told federal lawmakers that the issue is not about bureaucracy. He insisted that several laws require harmonisation and that biosafety responsibilities set through international agreements should be reassessed before the bill is voted into law. He recalled that the Authority has long collaborated with agricultural officials on matters related to genetic modification, with the Agriculture Authority acting only after EPA approval.

“This is still our mandate, and it must be respected," said Addisu. "However, some collaborative schemes can be added.”

Federal Environmental officials' concerns were echoed by Terresa Chemeda, noted that overlapping responsibilities had historically weakened environmental governance. He argued that the draft proclamation restates provisions already incorporated in the Biosafety Proclamation and urged members of the Standing Committee to iron out inconsistencies.

“If a work succeeds, everyone wants to claim the credit," said Terresa. "If it fails, each side denies responsibility. We must prevent this.”

Lawmakers acknowledged the tension. According to Solomon Lule, chairperson of the Standing Committee, any ambiguity in institutional mandates harms the public by undermining service delivery. The Committee is reviewing the establishment proclamations of both agencies to determine whether contradictions exist.

“It requires a detailed examination of the establishment proclamations of both institutions to determine whether an overlap exists,” he said. “At the moment, it is under review.”

The bill before Parliament includes detailed rules on pest surveys, inspections, and import controls. Any plant intended for importation should undergo a pest survey to confirm that the production site and location are free of infestations. Wooden samples should comply with international standards. Imported soil for scientific research is to be accompanied by risk-reduction measures. Biological pest control materials cannot be imported, developed or used without a risk analysis.

The bill also proposes accepting plant quarantine treatments from exporting countries if their efficacy is verified.

EPA’s objections extend to invasive alien species management. It currently monitors and verifies the spread of invasive species in partnership with other bodies. The bill, however, assigns monitoring, prevention, and control responsibilities to the Ministry of Agriculture’s Invasive Alien Species Unit. According to the Authority's officials, the mandate should either remain under EPA's umbrella or be jointly managed. Without clarity, officials argue, the country risks weakening a system that relies on clearly defined lines of authority.

Officials from the Ethiopian Agricultural Authority (EAA) have sought to ease tensions. According to Wondale Habtamu (PhD), deputy director of the EAA, coordination is already well established. He acknowledged that EPA represents the country in major international conventions such as the Rotterdam, Basel, Stockholm and Biosafety Conventions, while the Agriculture Authority manages plant-related matters.

“This delegation is given to those who handle daily responsibilities,” he said. “We represent only the plant-related conventions. We collaborate with whatever technical support we need from EPA.”

He believes joint work on genetically modified organisms is standard practice and ensures Ethiopia meets international reporting obligations.

The Ministry of Agriculture maintains that the bill is essential for modernising the sector. Its officials argued the framework will enhance productivity by strengthening pest surveys, building early warning systems, using improved pest control technologies, and ensuring compliance with the International Plant Protection Convention. They see the bill as an instrument to prevent the spread of regulated pests and address longstanding gaps in the domestic plant quarantine structure.

Meles Mekonnen (PhD), state minister for Agriculture, told MPs that the bill, if passed, will protect Ethiopians’ rights over plant resources and support agricultural transformation. He argued the draft had undergone multiple reviews by the Ministry of Justice and the legal department of the Prime Minister’s Office. He insisted that the system would not create overlapping mandates.

“But we will re-examine anything that needs revisiting and make necessary clarifications,” he said. "Stakeholder feedback helps capture issues that may have been overlooked."

The bill is expected to incorporate commercialising activities in the sector, to reduce dependence on foreign testing facilities by building domestic capacity. It proposes penalties for violations and authorises the adoption of new bylaws. Officials hope these additions will address longstanding economic, social, and environmental damage caused by pests.

The tension between federal regulators has attracted attention from experts who warn that any gaps in biosafety oversight could have steep consequences.

Gizachew Haile (PhD), a biotechnology researcher at Addis Abeba Science & Technology University, welcomed the bill's alignment with international standards but urged caution over shifting responsibilities.

“If one genetically modified material passes through with weak inspection, it can affect both the environment and production,” he said.

The previous system regulating genetic modification, invasive alien species and quarantine matters was tightly linked to environmental protection. For him, the EPA and the Agriculture Authority are “inseparable and intertwined,” given the complexity of their responsibilities. He sees most international commitments on biosafety fall under the EPA’s supervision. Ethiopia submits an annual report to the Convention on Biosafety Activities. EPA leads the process, while technical information often comes from the Agriculture Authority.

The Agriculture Authority evaluates whether a genetically modified crop can boost production, resist diseases and suit local conditions. EPA assesses whether the material might harm the climate, wildlife, humans or the broader ecosystem. Gizachew recalled the late Tewelde Birhan (PhD), who led Ethiopia’s biosafety negotiations and secured EPA’s mandate through previous proclamations.

"Ethiopia resisted pressure to fast-track commercialisation of genetically modified crops, choosing instead to build regulatory capacity," said Gizachew.

Gizachew also outlined the current process for commercialising genetically modified products. Materials are first submitted to the Agriculture Authority, then reviewed by the Seed Regulatory Department. Only after securing these approvals can products reach farmers. EPA conducts a parallel assessment to determine environmental safety. According to Gizachew, capacity constraints have constrained commercialisation for years.

Ethiopia lacks testing facilities and advanced laboratories, forcing companies to send samples abroad and incurring foreign-exchange costs. Investors remain hesitant due to the absence of domestic infrastructure.

PUBLISHED ON Nov 29,2025 [ VOL 26 , NO 1335]