What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the
agricultural research agendas of developing countries?
The agricultural research agenda should be defined
using a "bottom-up" approach, based on the needs of local
communities in developing countries. The needs and realities
of small farmers in developing countries require special
attention in the research agenda. Research is very important
for developing country agriculture and more public funding of
biotechnology research is needed.
There is general agreement about the positive role that non-GMO
biotechnology research can play in developing countries but
opinions are divided about use of scarce agricultural research
resources for GMO research. Biotechnology research can and
should complement research into conventional technologies.
Research collaboration, both within and between countries, is
essential for developing countries but there are some
reservations about public-private sector collaborations.
Intellectual property rights are an issue of concern for
biotechnology research in developing countries. With reduced
national research budgets, regional collaborations have
special importance. Opinions are divided on whether developing
countries should develop their own biotechnology products and
techniques or whether they should adapt those developed
elsewhere.
These were some of the outcomes of
a moderated e-mail conference, entitled "What should be the
role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research
agendas of developing countries?", hosted by the FAO
Biotechnology Forum from 13 November to 16 December 2002.
During the 5-week conference, 347 people subscribed and 128
messages were posted, about 60% from people living in
developing countries. Most were from people working in
research centres/organisations (35%), universities (25%) and
NGOs (20%), with the remainder coming from independent
consultants (10%) or people working in government agencies or
FAO.
1. Introduction:
The theme of the 8th conference of the FAO Biotechnology
Forum, which took place from 13 November to 16 December 2002,
was "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the
agricultural research agendas of developing countries?". As
stated in the Background Document to this conference, the
theme is both topical and important. This was shown, for
example, in Rome in June 2002, when the Heads of State and
Government of over 180 countries unanimously adopted the
"Declaration of the World Food Summit: five years later"
stating, inter alia, "We call on the FAO, in conjunction with
the CGIAR and other international research institutes, to
advance agricultural research and research into new
technologies, including biotechnology. The introduction of
tried and tested new technologies including biotechnology
should be accomplished in a safe manner and adapted to local
conditions to help improve agricultural productivity in
developing countries. We are committed to study, share and
facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in addressing
development needs".
During the conference, a total of 128 messages were received,
numbered in the order of posting. The aim of this Summary
Document is to provide a summary of the main arguments and
issues discussed during the conference, based on the
participants' messages. Specific references to messages
posted, giving the participant's surname and message number,
are provided. All messages can be viewed at the Archives of
Conference 8. Note, in the Forum, participants are always
assumed to be speaking on their own personal behalf and not on
behalf of their employers, unless they state otherwise.
There was large interest in the subject of the conference. A
total of 347 people joined and 67 (19%) of them submitted at
least one message. Messages came from all parts of the world,
about 60% from participants living in developing countries.
The conference was very successful, both in terms of the
number of topics covered and, in particular, the quality of
the messages posted. As Murphy (106) wrote in the final week,
"The discussions have overwhelmingly been positive and
constructive both in substance and tone and I have learned a
lot from people with whom I would rarely have the chance to
communicate".
Most of the discussions, when referring to specific
agricultural situations, considered the crop sector, with few
messages focusing solely on the agro-industry, fishery,
forestry or livestock sectors. Although the term
"biotechnology" in the FAO Biotechnology Forum covers a wide
range of diverse technologies, used mainly in reproductive
biology or in the manipulation and use of genetic material of
living organisms, participants chose to focus on genetic
modification and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Thus,
as in previous Forum conferences, GM crops were a major topic
of discussion.
In Section 2 of this document, the main elements of the
discussions are summarised under seven topics (2.1-2.7).
Section 3 provides some information about participation in the
conference and Section 4 gives the name and country of the
people that sent referenced messages. Section 5 provides an
explanation of abbreviations used in the document.
2. Main topics discussed:
2.1 Bottom-up approach to agricultural research
There was large consensus that research in developing
countries should be intimately linked to the problems and
requirements of local communities. The need for a "bottom-up"
approach in agricultural research and development was
therefore emphasised (Altieri (42, 94), Bhatia (53), Nishio
(100), Ashton (102, 119), Dhlamini (105), DeGrassi (111) and
Vazquez (128)). As Altieri (94) wrote, the approach should use
and build upon the resources available i.e. the local people,
their knowledge and native natural resources and "it must also
seriously take into consideration, through participatory
approaches, the needs, aspirations and circumstances of
smallholders". Ashton (119) argued that breeding improvements
(through biotechnology or conventional methods) can only
succeed if a network exists to take the "needs of farmers to
breeders and for the two to meaningfully interface".
Perera (76) referred to a practical application of the
bottom-up approach when establishing agricultural
biotechnology priorities for Sri Lanka. Here, institutes in
the national agricultural research systems (NARS) and other
related institutes held discussions with their relevant
stakeholders and then informed a national committee of their
future plans and priorities in the field of biotechnology. The
committee then decided on the national priorities by
considering the real problems faced by the farming community
and deciding which techniques could help to solve/minimise
these problems. Nwalozie (47) also described how a broad
spectrum of stakeholders, including farmers and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), were involved in
development of agricultural research plans for West and
Central Africa.
DeGrassi (111) agreed with Altieri (42) that the voice of the
poor farmer was mostly absent when the agenda was being set
for the poor and he advocated building basic grassroots
democracy. Muralidharan (6) felt that even in developing
countries with high biotechnology capacity, like India and
China, "hardly any benefits have been realized which are
specific to poor-farmer requirements". Altieri (8), supported
by Sai (15), also argued that the CGIAR and GFAR, both
important for defining the research agendas for the developing
world, had little participation from farmers and NGOs. Badr
(127) argued that because small farmers have their own
expertise and local knowledge, researchers should work with
them, a point also made by Nishio (100). Sanchez (126)
indicated the need for biotechnology researchers to not only
receive training in biology techniques but also to develop a
"holistic view of the rural and agricultural situation of
their countries".
2.2 How much of the limited resources available for
agricultural research should be devoted to biotechnology?
As noted in the Background Document (and emphasised by
participants throughout the conference), agricultural research
is very important for developing countries, especially in the
light of the challenges that farmers there will face in the
coming decades, but it receives relatively limited funding.
One of the questions that participants were asked to address
in the conference was how much of these limited resources
should be devoted to biotechnology research. Traoré (39) felt
it was not easy to answer the question. As Immonen (30) noted,
"agricultural biotechnology may compete with many other
research needs in agriculture and in other areas of research
for benefit of the developing countries". There was a lively
discussion on the topic, with considerable disagreement about
using research resources on GMOs (i.e. "GMO research"). There
was, however, general agreement about the positive role that
biotechnology research excluding GMOs (i.e. "non-GMO
biotechnology research") can play and that biotechnology
research can and should complement research into conventional
technologies.
Limitation of agricultural research resources was in some
cases, however, seen to be an insurmountable problem. For
example, Mayer (87) noted that in reality there were often few
or no research funds available for allocation and that funding
for international agricultural research had fallen badly in
recent years. Herbert (99) said that in his country, Nigeria,
less than 0.1% of the GDP was applied to agricultural research
(crop and livestock together, with relatively fewer resources
going to livestock), a situation which was not conducive to
investments in livestock biotechnology research.
2.2.1 Biotechnology research complementing conventional
research:
Several participants emphasised the complementarity between
biotechnology research and research into conventional
technologies. Downes (9) argued for increased support for
biotechnology research but said this did not deny the need for
better more conventional technologies in food production.
Beach (4), supported by Collard (24), also felt there was room
for both conventional breeding and biotechnology and that it
would be wrong to reduce support for conventional breeding and
depend on biotechnology (i.e. "they must go together"). This
was precisely the concern of Guimarães (3), who noted that
many traditional rice breeding programmes had been dismantled
and funds transferred to other research areas such as
biotechnology, meaning that it was now more difficult to train
a young scientist in conventional rice breeding methods than
it was a couple of decades ago.
Traoré (39) estimated that in his country, Mali, more than 80%
of the agricultural research resources were allocated to
applied and adaptive research, mostly to conventional research
methodologies, and suggested that "some resources could be
devoted to selective biotechnology tools like molecular
markers or tissue culture which could efficiently complement
the ongoing conventional research". Muir (72) proposed that
given limited resources and time, optimal allocation of
research resources could be found by defining the alternatives
technologies (e.g. conventional breeding, marker assisted
selection or genetic modification), the costs of each and the
likely benefits from each.
Izquierdo (19) favoured a "strict interdisciplinary
complementation considering conventional breeding, advanced
genetic plant improvement and integrated crop management" and
urged that polarisation be avoided. Altieri (42) also urged
that truly inter-disciplinary research be conducted, covering
crop, soil, water and pest management aspects simultaneously
and considering the specificity of the local farming systems,
maintaining that biotechnology research treats the complex
agrobiodiversity characteristics of small farming systems as a
"black box". Murphy (48) emphasised the importance of getting
the basics in place first, i.e. metaphorically making the
cake, and that GMO research might be then the "icing on the
cake". His overall feelings about agricultural research in
developing countries were that a) there was still a great
dearth of basic knowledge about the agronomy, physiology and
genetics of many major crops in these countries; b) an
appropriate infrastructure, both for education and training
and for advice and outreach to farmers was still being
developed; c) dramatic yield benefits might be possible by
simple improvements in management practices and by better use
of existing germplasm; d) in the longer term, developing
countries would need to deploy the full range of modern
agricultural biotechnology methods and they should therefore
foster a modest research effort in this area.
2.2.2 Research on GMOs:
There was considerable discussion, and deep division,
regarding how much research resources should be used on one
biotechnology, genetic modification. Altieri (1) provided a
number of reasons why he considered that very little public
funds should be used for GMO research in developing countries,
particularly in relation to small farmers, such as the costs
of transgenic seeds, the long development time for GM crops
(especially when modified for complex traits, like drought
tolerance), the absence of acceptable biosafety regulations in
some countries and intellectual property rights (IPR) issues.
Howe (13) argued that substantial funding of GMO research by
large companies meant that it was not carried out to benefit
the poor and that (69) no public funding should be dedicated
to GMO research. As an alternative to genetic modification,
Altieri (8) proposed that there were "hundreds of other less
risky, less costly agroecological technologies that are
pro-poor, do not cause environmental degradation and that are
culturally sensitive and socially activating". De Lange (16)
agreed, citing integrated farming, mixed cropping and
traditional soil and water conservation methods. Ferry (18)
felt that promoting more GMO research "except in some
exceptional cases, will be at best useless to the poor and
more probably prejudicial for them", and argued that since
money for research in developing countries was increasingly
rare, biotechnology should not be a priority for the poor.
The issue of consumer concerns about "GM food" was raised by
some participants (e.g. Verzola, 11; Mashava, 12) who felt the
concerns should be a motive for reducing GMO research funding,
while others (e.g. Infante, 17) suggested it was hindering the
possibility of developing countries introducing new GM
products onto the world market. Vazquez (28) said that the
healthy food-production environment of developing countries
should be further boosted and that alternatives to GM crops,
such as research in the fields of agroecology, population
ecology and community ecology, should be explored. Verzola
(51) cautioned about the risks of gene flow from field testing
GMOs and warned scientists to be aware that field testing
could be used to carry out a hidden agenda of "deliberate
contamination" of GMO-free countries. In this context, Mehra
(70) noted that many developing countries do not have
sufficient infrastructure to regulate the release/use of GM
crops, while Halos (52) proposed that when a country decides
to invest in GMO research it should also establish a biosafety
regulatory system.
Other participants emphasised the potential benefits of GMO
research. For example, Downes (9), while accepting the main
arguments of Altieri (1, 8), came to a different conclusion,
arguing for better support for GMO research (and teaching)
"carried out on a broadly public-good model, in developing
countries and in partnership with them". He felt that,
although still at the early stages of its development, genetic
modification "is generally judged to be at the beginning of
extraordinary wealth (and health) creation in the rich world"
and that poor regions of the world should not be allowed to
fall behind in this area and should be assisted to access it
for their own needs. Sai (7), like Muralidharan (6), also
disagreed with Altieri (1) that very little public funds
should be used for GMO research in developing countries,
arguing that this would only support the cause of the
multi-national corporations (MNCs), who currently possess
knowledge in the field, and that "successful public research
can only counter monopolistic tendencies of private
corporations".
2.2.3 Non-GMO biotechnology research:
As Sabu (45) reminded participants, biotechnology is not just
about GMOs. While the use of agricultural research funds for
GMO research was a subject of considerable debate, the same
was not true for other biotechnologies. Participants proposed
a range of different non-GMO biotechnologies that should be
included in the research agenda (although without specifying
how much resources should be devoted to them), often
suggesting that this research would be more beneficial to
developing countries than research involving GMOs.
Muralidharan (61), supported by Dollie (62) and Howe (64),
felt that less sophisticated, cheaper biotechnologies were
being neglected in the research agenda in favour of genetic
modification because it was "new and fashionable". Dollie
(62), therefore, suggested "perhaps it is time to pause and
re-prioritise". Verzola (11) and Collard (24) also argued that
biotechnology research was too skewed in favour of genetic
modification while non-GMO biotechnologies received little
attention and funds. Newman (86) felt that scarce funding
should be allocated preferably to non-GMO biotechnology that
"offers the same promises of disease, frost, drought and
insect tolerance that we are needing". Collard (24) suggested
that research into other biotechnologies (such as mutation
breeding, tissue culture and use of markers) might be more
relevant to developing countries than GMO research and that
non-GMO biotechnologies should be considered on the research
agenda, but only in conjunction with non-biotechnology areas
of agricultural research. Datta (26), on the other hand,
argued that each biotechnology has its own merits and
disadvantages and that genetic modification, for example,
could tackle some problems that other biotechnologies could
not.
Edirisinghe (88) emphasised that there are many areas of
research where there are "no arguments and which all can agree
to work on", thoughts echoed by De Lange (118) who said "we
should focus on biotechnologies that are acceptable for
everybody". Muralidharan (92) supported Edirisinghe's (88)
point, proposing 'lower biotechnologies' (such as
biofertilisers) as one such research area. He also argued that
they would benefit from the availability of cheap labour in
developing countries and that additional research should be
carried out to make micropropagation more accessible to
farmers in developing countries. Scanlan (80) also supported
research into the "lower biotechnologies", maintaining that
substantial progress had been made in the development of
biofertilisers and biopesticides and suggesting that, when
associated with other desirable practices (including promotion
of biodiversity, multiple cropping systems, indigenous plant
species, improved germplasm and integrated production and
protection), technologies such as these "can have much impact
in addressing household food security and creating sustainable
livelihoods in low-income food-deficit countries".
Sabu (45), like Nwalozie (31), described the benefits of
tissue culture, where a plant tissue culture lab could be set
up in public sector institutions with poor finances, and
underlined the role that genomics could play in rice breeding.
Immonen (30) also highlighted the importance of genomics
research, arguing that it would be particularly important for
crops in developing countries, while De Lange (118) underlined
how much has yet to be learned about genomes. Rajmohan (84)
also felt that tissue culture was an important biotechnology
for developing countries, but stressed its limitations. He
proposed that use of molecular markers was the most important
area of biotechnology, given the rich plant genetic resources
found in developing countries, and that GMO research (focused
on specific-country needs) should be strengthened only in
selected institutions, in collaboration with developed
countries. Mayer (66) also underlined that apomixis in
otherwise non-apomictic crops was a very important area of
biotechnology research.
2.3 What should be the priorities for biotechnology
research in developing countries?
Of the resources devoted to agricultural biotechnology
research in developing countries, what priorities should be
given to the different agricultural sectors (crop, fishery,
forestry, agro-industry or livestock) and which research areas
should be prioritised within each of these sectors? In the
conference, some participants attempted to answer these
difficult questions.
Considering prioritisation in general, Bhatia (53) suggested
that when setting priorities in agricultural research, methods
should be used to identify areas giving "maximum return in the
shortest possible time, with minimum investment", although he
pointed out that even in small farming communities, conflicts
may arise between the needs of different groups of farmers
(e.g. those with dry land or with irrigation facilities). He
proposed that the most limiting constraint for production
systems in an area be identified and then "the best available
technology that can ameliorate the situation in the shortest
time frame, at an affordable cost, should be used". Franco
(120) argued that prioritising the needs of developing
countries should be on the basis of a case-by-case analysis,
considering the kind of biotechnology research involved (GMO,
tissue culture, molecular markers etc.), the user (poor farmer
for food subsistence, or large farmer for export of products)
and the time horizon. Rajmohan (84) maintained that when
allocating resources for biotechnology research, developing
countries should have concrete ideas about the immediate and
long term benefits to their resource-poor farmers and they
should not merely attempt to mimic the biotechnology research
of developed countries.
Hong (101) noted that each country has to prioritise and
evaluate areas of biotechnology that could be effectively and
economically employed for its (agricultural) development,
giving the example of Malaysia, where the government has
formed a National Biotechnology Secretariat to prioritise and
coordinate suitable biotechnological applications for
development of industries or processes, especially those using
agricultural resources. Perera (76) described the outcome of
an exercise to determine agriculture biotechnology priorities
for Sri Lanka, considering the real problems of the farmers
and deciding which techniques could help/minimise them. The
seven priorities were improvement of crop and livestock
productivity; reduction of costs of cultivation of crops and
management of livestock; biodiversity; environment; genome
analysis and transgenics; bioinformatics and, finally,
nutrition.
2.3.1 Priorities between the different agricultural
sectors:
Badr (60) felt it was hard to generalise about this, as the
agricultural sectors to be prioritised may differ between
countries and even between regions of a country. Traoré (39)
also noted that the prioritised sector will differ from
country to country and suggested that prioritisation should
depend on the added value that biotechnology brings to the
research program. For his country, Mali, research in the crop
sector had been prioritised "due partly to the state of
trained manpower and labour facilities", but that livestock
and forestry biotechnology research had not been neglected.
Similarly, Rajmohan (84) said crop biotechnology seems to have
top priority in most developing countries and that priorities
between the remaining sectors should be based on benefits to
the farmers. Muhunthan (117), because of the importance of
crops such as cereals, legumes, vegetables and tubers,
proposed that first priority for agricultural biotechnology
research should be given to the crop sector, followed by the
forestry sector, then the livestock/fishery sectors and,
finally, agro-industry.
2.3.2 Priorities within the different agricultural sectors:
When considering priorities for biotechnology research within
specific agricultural sectors, most messages considered the
crop sector, with participants proposing a range of different
research areas and species to be prioritised.
Infante (17) pointed out that some crops of high economic and
trade value, such as coffee or cocao, have not been
prioritised in the research agenda, but should be. He also
proposed a number of areas where biotechnology would be
invaluable for improving crop production because improvement
through conventional breeding is difficult, such as crops with
a narrow genetic base and/or long agronomic cycles. Sabu (21)
mentioned specifically how the genetic diversity of rice had
been eroded by genetic selection processes and that both the
productivity and genetic diversity of rice had to be increased
in Asia, proposing that biotechnology be used for the
identification and incorporation of useful genes from wild
rice germplasm. Immonen (30) mentioned in particular the need
for research into the function of genes controlling important
crop traits, such as tolerance to different abiotic stresses.
Muhunthan (117) suggested use of DNA markers, micropropagation
and other in vitro technologies be prioritised with the aim of
increasing productivity and the development of pest/disease
resistant crop varieties. Owusu-Biney (93) suggested a number
of specific examples of problems in West Africa that might be
addressed by biotechnology, including those involving the
cassava mosaic virus, the presence of arsenates in soils of
mining areas and the need for fast growing trees for
afforestation programs and to satisfy demand for wood. Newman
(86) said that priority in research should be given to
addressing the impacts of seasonal variation, in particular
due to drought, because farmers need consistency in income.
Infante (17) suggested that research in South America should
also consider the special circumstances of people living in
regions above 3000 meters in altitude.
For the forestry sector, Muralidharan (85) emphasised the
"tremendous potential of biotechnology" for improving
understanding of the genetics of forest trees in the tropics
and thus accelerating their genetic improvement, but argued
that the objectives of tree improvement programmes should move
from the emphasis on a few, fast-growing clones grown in a
sterile high-input environment to a "more people and
eco-friendly forestry". Muhunthan (117) emphasised the need
for preserving the valuable genetic resources of developing
countries, where molecular markers and in vitro techniques,
along with reproductive biological studies, could be used.
Regarding other sectors, Herbert (99) felt there was an urgent
need to apply biotechnology to ensure maintenance of livestock
biodiversity in the developing world, emphasising the risk of
erosion of animal genetic resources. Halos (52) proposed that
biotechnology research should also focus on development of
edible vaccines for humans and animals, an area also
highlighted by Badr (95). Muhunthan (117) emphasised milk
production of local livestock breeds, using conventional
methods as well as reproductive and DNA technologies to
increase production, while for aquaculture, he proposed that
the focus be on genetic selection and hybridisation, with
maximum utilisation of sea and inland water resources. For
agro-industry, De Lange (40) suggested biotechnology research
should aim to improve fermentation techniques, especially at
the household level, while Muhunthan (117) maintained that
research should focus on "conventional biotechnologies", such
as biofertilisers and biopesticides, and that village
communities should be directly involved in the research work.
2.3.3 Impact of the time horizon on priorities:
Ferry (90) pointed out the importance of considering the time
perspective when discussing priorities in the research agenda,
as new varieties (GM or not) might not be considered necessary
for reducing the number of poor by the year 2015 but they
might be if the time horizon was extended to 2050. He also
proposed that research resources for regions with serious
hunger problems (such as sub-Saharan African) should be
focused on projects providing very quick solutions.
Muralidharan (54, 67) also felt that, particularly for
developing countries, research funding should go towards
meeting short term goals. Collard (24) maintained that with so
many food insecure people in the world, research providing
short term benefits was essential in agriculture and, since
many areas of biotechnology may only provide medium to long
term benefits, this research might not involve biotechnology.
Blanchfield (58) felt it was a mistake to try to weigh up
short term versus long term goals, as a "balance is needed
between the two", so that the serious problems currently
facing the poor, requiring short-term solutions, as well as
the responsibility to future generations, would be addressed.
Muir (104), supported by Murti (109) and Heisey (110),
maintained that short term solutions for poverty were not to
be found in biology (or biotechnology) but in the economics
and politics of the region involved, thus "there is no silver
bullet such as biotechnology that is going to stop poverty -
that requires a consistent and focused political structure to
provide the infrastructure necessary to succeed". Infante
(107) agreed with Muir (104) that the solution to poverty was
social and not technological, and underlined the importance of
education. Murti (109) highlighted the problems of building
policy in this area when policy-makers are "scientifically
illiterate" and scientists "politically clueless".
2.4 Focusing research towards the small farmer:
Throughout the conference, participants placed special
emphasis on the situation and needs of the small farmers in
developing countries and the potential impact that
biotechnology research could have on their lives. Thus, in the
first message of the conference, Altieri (1) emphasised that
"an estimated 850 million people live on land threatened by
desertification. Another 500 million reside on terrain that is
too steep to cultivate. Because of those and other
limitations, about two billion people have been untouched by
modern agricultural science. Most of the rural poor live in
the tropics, a region that is the most vulnerable to the
effects of global warming".
2.4.1 The needs of the small farmer:
Izquierdo (19) highlighted traits important for small farmers
in marginal areas, such as tolerance to drought, salinity,
soil pH, pest resistance, food or fodder quality and post
harvest keeping quality. Mayer (66), like Datta (36),
underlined the importance of improved seed for the small
farmer and argued that "it will be very important to
accurately identify the special needs of small farmers with
respect to germplasm improvement and then to decide which is
the best technical path to achieve the desired results.
Biotechnology will not always be the answer but it definitely
will in some cases". Sharry (71) agreed, arguing that in her
country, Argentina, GM crops could help in some special
situations. Badr (78) noted that the needs of small farmers
differ from one country to another and gave examples of the
problems facing small farmers in her country, Egypt, such as
high costs and fluctuations in market prices. She wrote (82)
that in Egypt, small farmers want increased yields and income
by applying biotechnology research, provided it is safe.
Verzola (11) said the small farmers he works with in the
Philippines need and want more research on organic,
chemical-free agriculture. Ouf (115) maintained that small
farmers need high-producing varieties tolerant to different
environmental stresses.
Altieri (94) provided a list of eight topics that he thought
would emerge in the research agenda if defined jointly with
small farmers from developing countries, namely improved
understanding of marginal agroecosystems; selection of local
varieties that deliver stable yields in the face of
environmental stress; technologies for water harvesting and
drought management; small-scale, community-managed irrigation
and water-conservation systems; more diversified, less risky
and productive farming systems; synergetic, diversified and
less risky cropping and crop-livestock systems providing more
stable yields; productive and sustainable agroforestry
alternatives to shifting cultivation and, finally, sustainable
income- and employment-generating exploitation of forest,
fisheries and natural resources, as well as research on land
reform, access to local markets, etc. Based on his long
experience with low-income rural families in India, Nazareth
(46) listed the main causes (14 in total) of nutritional
insecurity for rain fed, irrigated and urban areas and
suggested that agricultural research systems should look at
them and evaluate current agricultural biotechnologies "to see
how much they are part of the problem and to what extent they
can be solutions".
2.4.2 Whether biotechnology research can help the small
farmer:
Although there were clear differences of opinion about genetic
modification, there seemed to be general agreement (e.g.
Ashton, 102) that specific non-GMO biotechnologies and
biotechnology research could help small farmers.
Ashton (102) suggested that countries should follow the
example of Zimbabwe where an independent biotechnology trust
investigated problems among smallholder farmers that might be
addressed by biotechnology. It identified no problems that
could be mitigated by use of GM crops. He suggested that GM
crops do not aim to meet the needs of small farmers because
they are directed towards intensive, industrial farming, a
point also made by Ferry (18). Verzola (20) warned that
farmers from developing countries who invest in GM crops would
feel "the full brunt of reduced GM crop prices and market
rejection", as there were no subsidy programmes for farmers.
Altieri (42) stated that major peasant movements worldwide
reject GMOs and "corporate control of biotechnology".
Muralidharan (6) felt, however, that "poor-farmer
biotechnology" could start with nutritional improvement of a
staple food crop using genetic modification, as this would
clearly illustrate benefits of the technology. Halos (14)
described the conditions of small farmers in the Philippines,
suggesting that GMOs might be important for them in some
situations e.g. increasing their incomes by reducing crop
losses due to pests or diseases.
Ashton (102) suggested that other biotechnologies, such as
tissue culture or marker assisted selection, might
successfully address the needs of small farmers. Badr (82)
felt that biotechnology research to help small farmers should
involve research to increase yields, preferably through small
quick projects that could be run by women farmers at home,
mentioning (114), in particular, the benefits of
micropropagation. Looking at the past, Ferry (32) argued,
however, that most high yielding varieties produced by the
"green revolution" had been mainly useful to farmers with
access to water resources and money to buy fertilisers and
pesticides. In reply, Reece (34) accepted that bigger farmers
had been the first to benefit from the new varieties, but
argued there was evidence to suggest that smaller farmers also
eventually increased their incomes by means of the new
varieties.
Muralidharan (55) felt that the scarce public funds available
should support research to improve and implement "modern, but
relatively conventional, agricultural practices" (such as
post-harvest protection, storage and equitably distributing
food grains) that have a better chance of reaching poor
farmers. Muhunthan (122) suggested that the "biovillage
concept" could be important for small farmers, where the term
"biovillage" is used to denote "the integration of
biotechnology with the best in traditional techniques, in a
manner that the livelihood security of rural people can be
upgraded ecologically and economically". Scanlan (80)
advocated the potential benefits of biotechnology research for
small farmers in the context of conservation agriculture and
other sustainable practices.
Many participants, including Badr (60), felt that any research
agenda should be accompanied by training and education for
farmers. Kambikambi (50) felt that in some countries, small
farmers were not able to make informed decisions about
biotechnology because of poor understanding of the subject.
Badr (60) also felt that by seeing new technologies applied
successfully in field experiments, small farmers would then
try to use them. Herbert (99) argued that in rural Africa,
where livestock serve as stores of cash, small farmers would
accept reproductive technologies in the livestock sector if
they were involved in development of the technologies.
2.5 National, regional and international research
collaborations:
Cooperation, cooperation, cooperation!!! With constraints in
national research budgets, participants emphasised the
importance of increased cooperation between researchers and
research organisations, both within and between countries.
2.5.1 Research at the national and regional level:
A point made in the Background Document was that there are
large differences between developing countries with respect to
biotechnology capacity and financial/human investments in
biotechnology research. A small number of countries, such as
Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, have
well-developed biotechnology programmes. The majority have,
however, relatively weak biotechnology capacity and very
limited research resources. In this situation, there was
strong support from participants for regional research
initiatives. For example, Bhatia (53) claimed that NARS in
most countries have very little of the expertise and
infrastructure needed for advanced biotechnology research (a
point also highlighted by Nwalozie (47)), and emphasised,
therefore, the need for active collaborations between
individuals, departments and institutions.
Mayer (6) advocated fostering regional collaborations based on
strong NARS and international agricultural research centres (IARCs),
and that major donors and advanced research institutes (ARIs)
should also be involved. Traoré (39) argued that NARS in
developing countries, in addition to other areas, needed to
tackle some strategic issues in biotechnology research,
focusing on the special needs of developing countries, and
that this would help their scientific partners (including
IARCs) to give more focus to pro-poor biotechnology research.
He encouraged international cooperation on biotechnology
research to complement the individual national or sub-regional
research agendas and said that in the African region, the
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), in
conjunction with the sub-regional organisations, would play an
important catalytic role in this. Muralidharan (6) admitted
that, individually, NARS were no match for large corporate
firms but emphasised that, collectively, they would have many
advantages, such as their ability to focus on specific
poor-farmer oriented technologies.
Nwalozie (47) informed participants about the existence of
regional and sub-regional research organisations for
developing countries, with the sub-regional organisations
composed of NARS as the building blocks. He described the long
consensus-seeking process by which strategic plans for
agricultural research cooperation had been drawn up for the
West and Central Africa sub-region, from which biotechnology
was identified as a key tool. Given the definition of regional
priorities and the expensive nature of biotechnology, he
concluded that "it makes partnership and economic sense to
pool human, material and financial resources together at
regional levels in respect of biotechnology research in
developing countries. This does not mean that national biotech
programmes should be stopped. A regional approach can
undertake certain research of common interest, and also
strengthen national capacities in biotechnology". Rajmohan
(84) also argued that prioritisation of the research
objectives should be made at the regional, rather than the
national, level and highlighted the importance of regional
cooperation between biotechnology research instructions,
something he said was often missing.
Muhunthan (121) acknowledged that sub-regional and regional
collaboration was very important, but felt that objectives for
biotechnology research should be first prioritised at the
national level within NARS and that a body should monitor
research within the country to avoid duplication of research
efforts, a problem also mentioned by other participants (e.g.
Abdel-Mawgood, 108). For a small country like Sri Lanka, he
suggested there was a lot to be gained from collaborating with
"regional biotechnology giants", such as India. Ashton (102)
also favoured a regional approach, proposing that "the limited
resources available for agricultural research should therefore
be regionally pooled and examine the simplest, most practical
and preferably previously proven and tested technologies used
in similar climatological, infrastructurally-deficient
regions".
2.5.2 Collaborations involving NARS, IARCs, developed
country research institutions and the private sector:
International collaboration was generally seen in a very
positive light, in particular collaboration involving
different public sector institutes. Some participants,
however, urged caution concerning public-private sector
research collaborations.
Herbert (99) felt that cooperation between scientists in the
North and South should continue as it was yielding good
fruits, a point also emphasised by Abdel-Mawgood (108) who
said that from his own experience, "the most successful work
is that involving collaborative research projects with
scientists from the developed world. So I am suggesting that
developing countries set up agendas for their priorities and
find an expertise from the developed world in that area of
research to benefit from his/her experience, to speed up the
research and hasten benefit from the technology".
Hong (101) emphasised that biotechnology research must be
strategically planned and government supported, with the
active participation of the private sector. Rajmohan (84)
welcomed international collaboration and said that it was
essential, particularly for human resource development and
establishment of facilities, as was cooperation between public
and private sector institutes within a country. The importance
of training human resources in biotechnology was underlined by
several participants. For example, Murphy (106) noted its
importance for enabling informed decisions to be made on the
allocation of scarce research and development resources, while
Dhlamini (105) maintained "capacity building and the ability
to retain trained personnel is central to the adoption and
utilisation of biotechnology in developing countries".
Some participants, however, expressed reservations about
public-private sector biotechnology research collaborations
for developing countries and urged increased investments in
public sector biotechnology research as an alternative. For
example, Muralidharan (6) felt that as private companies had a
vested interest in developing technology/products that
maximized their profit, this might often go against the
interests of farmers in developing countries. Verzola (116)
cautioned CGIAR institutes from opening themselves up to
"greater corporate influence". Traoré (39) was also sceptical
about the private sector properly addressing a pro-poor
research agenda, and argued that the only alternative to this
was to "build a strategy based on active cooperation among
NARS and alliance between NARS and public sector research
institutions (IARCs, ARIs, universities) to enable NARS to
have a certain research capacity to address issues important
to them and to the poor". Similarly, Dhlamini (105) felt that
"over-dependency on the donor community and private sector
should be discouraged" as "different donors have different
objectives and priorities and, in most cases, these are not in
line with the critical needs of the recipient countries". He
therefore urged increased public sector financing of applied
biotechnology activities. Immonen (30) also emphasised the
public sector's role, when she called for publicly funded
genomics research, involving developing country NARS, IARCs
and universities, noting the several advantages the public
sector had for engaging in such research. Muralidharan (55)
also argued that publicly funded GMO research, unlike that of
the private sector, could ensure that crop varieties
strategically important for developing countries were included
in the research priorities.
Morris (37), however, urged public funding bodies to "develop
a mindset that encourages the growth of real wealth creating
activities in the developing world", arguing that publicly
funded research often "does not lead to the development of
true globally competitive research capacity in the developing
world, and is often not self sustaining because IPR may not be
retained by the organization undertaking the research".
A number of participants underlined the role that
international organisations, such as FAO, should have in this
area, in: supporting development of infrastructure for
public-good agricultural research (Datta ,74; Murphy, 106);
providing knowledge and training to researchers from
developing countries (Sabu, 21); assisting dialogue on GMOs (Infante,
17; Reddy, 89); providing access to intellectual property
useful to developing countries (Datta, 36 and 74); and
providing general support for national agricultural
biotechnology (Acikgoz, 38).
2.6 Should developing countries adapt existing
biotechnology products and techniques or develop their own?
Participants were divided on the subject of whether developing
countries should, or would need to, develop their own
biotechnology products or techniques or, alternatively,
whether they should rely on adapting the research results from
industrialised countries. For example, Nwalozie (31, 47) and
Morris (37) felt developing countries should be pro-active
about biotechnology development, both referring specifically
to their continent, Africa, with Nwalozie (47) maintaining
"developing countries should not just adapt biotechnologies
developed in other countries. These technologies should be
developed in the developing countries or in the sub-region of
the developing country!". Kershen (41) supported this stance,
maintaining that Africa must invest in biotechnology if it is
"to have any future hope of gaining independence from aid,
food security, and health security".
Nassar (49) disagreed, saying "why should we developing
countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research
that can be made by developed countries?", proposing instead,
like Mayer (66), adaptation of technology developed elsewhere.
In a similar vein, Bhatia (53) compared development of GM
crops to aircraft construction and asked rhetorically "how
many countries have developed their own passenger aircrafts?".
Given the high technology level and the long time required to
develop a GM crop, he said he personally would seek to import
the GM seeds from a private company, although he noted that in
some cases (if the technology was unavailable/expensive or if
the country wished to invest in capacity building), public
funds should be used for local biotechnology development.
Martinez (57) disagreed with Nassar (49), arguing that the
farmer's vision, goals, needs and capabilities should be
considered first and then solutions should be tailored to the
farmer's specific set of constraints and goals, something
"that won't be achieved by simply importing technology
developed for a different population target with different
sets of goals and constraints".
Van Asselt (125), arguing that biotechnology research
technologies have been developed in close interaction with
specific research organisms and are therefore largely
"context-dependent", also questioned whether adoption of
research results from developed countries was an optimal
strategy as the species cultivated in developing countries
tended to differ from those used in biotechnology research in
developed countries. He therefore supported Franco's (120)
call for developing countries to be on the "biotechnology
development train". Infante (96) also highlighted that some
research problems are specific to developing country
agriculture, so developing countries will have to develop the
appropriate biotechnology solutions, if they want them.
Willemse (98) noted that most developing countries are net
importers of technologies and argued that the need was evident
for (a) local adaptation and extension of imported
technologies and (b) development and enhancement of new
technologies/competencies. In successfully developing the
biotechnology sector, he emphasised (98, 103) the importance
of the enabling environment for development and application.
Rajmohan (84) emphasised the importance of international
collaborative efforts, but argued that adoption of
already-developed technologies should only be a short term
objective and that the ultimate aim for developing countries
should be the generation of independent results and products.
Murphy (106) felt it might be better for developing countries
to wait a few years before investing in GMO research, arguing
that the technology is getting cheaper and simpler, many of
the current applications will be superseded in the next 5-10
years and that current technology may then be
semi-obsolescent. Immonen (30), on the other hand, suggested
that public sector genomics research initiatives, involving
developing country NARS, were worthwhile right now, as "in a
few years time, the private sector may have acquired a lot
more of the so-called platform information which is needed for
developing important breeding tools".
2.7 Intellectual property rights and biotechnology research
in developing countries:
In discussing research collaborations between developed and
developing countries, concerns about the impacts of IPR on
biotechnology research in developing countries and the private
sector's importance in the IPR issue were often raised. For
example, Altieri (8) felt an important issue to be addressed
was how poorly funded public research institutions would be
able to conduct independent, pro-poor biotechnology research
"in the midst of existing IPR regimes controlled by MNCs and
also given that private sector funding of many public research
centers and universities is increasingly biasing the research
agenda?". Vazquez (28) also suggested that industrialised
nations are advancing patent-like protection and/or plant
breeders' rights for plant varieties and that "the
introduction of GMOs as well as enforcement of IPR regimes
globally can be seen as market expansion by corporations". Sai
(15) shared the concerns of Altieri (8) and argued therefore
that the public in developing countries should be educated
that they should have IPR regimes suitable to their needs. He
concluded that there was no need for developing countries to
comply with the "dictats of MNCs" and that the WTO's agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) provides them with sufficient flexibility. Sullivan
(77) also urged that available options under TRIPS be explored
as they could, for example, leave open the possibility for
countries to "adopt broad research exemptions to intellectual
property infringement, which could be of benefit to developing
country agriculture".
Beach (4), Mayer (5) and Young (44) were more optimistic about
IPR issues and felt that agreements could be reached to
benefit all parties, enabling developing countries to access
technology and GM crops yet protecting the commercial
interests of MNCs. Sullivan (77) stated that "the issue of
proprietary claims to research products will not simply go
away" and argued, like Young (44), that proper training of
personnel in developing countries is necessary to "develop the
capacity and sophistication to deal with modern IPR systems
and to negotiate and do business with institutions and
companies that hold vitally needed technology". Beach (4) also
underlined that scientists in developing countries needed
training in IPR and regulatory issues, in addition to knowing
how to use the technology.
Mayer (5) also argued that the existence of patents did not
mean all doors were closed, as licences at acceptable rates
could be obtained, owners of key patents could be lobbied and,
finally, patents have a time limit. Immonen (30) also
suggested that IPR questions should not be avoided and that
many solutions exist, noting that at least "patents are far
better for information sharing and negotiation than trade
secrets".
For developing countries to circumvent IPR problems, some
participants (e.g. Mieschendahl, 29; Immonen, 30) proposed
increasing public agricultural research to reduce the reliance
on patented inputs from the private sector. For the same
reason, Morris (37) proposed that Africa should rapidly engage
in all facets of biotechnology development, which would allow
it to generate its own intellectual property and solutions.
3. Participation in the conference:
A total of 347 people subscribed to the conference and 67 of
them (i.e. 19 %) submitted at least one message - the highest
numbers of active participants and the highest participation
rate of all the ten conferences held so far in the FAO
Biotechnology Forum, indicating the high interest that people
have in this topic. 58% of messages were from participants
living in developing countries and 42% from developed
countries.
All continents were represented, with 41 of the 128 messages
posted (i.e. 32%) coming from participants living in Asia
while the remainder came from Europe (25 messages - 20%),
North America (22 messages - 17%), Africa (20 messages - 16%),
Latin America and the Caribbean (11 messages - 9%) and Oceania
(9 messages - 7%). People sent messages from 29 different
countries- the greatest proportion came from the United States
(17%), India (16%), The Philippines (9%), Australia (7%) and
Egypt (5%), followed by South Africa, Spain and the
Netherlands (each with 6 messages - 5%).
The greatest proportion of messages came from people working
in research centres or research organisations (35%, including
7 messages from people in CGIAR research centres and its
Science Council), which was not unusual given the theme of the
conference. There were 32 messages from people in universities
(25%), 26 messages from NGOs (20%) and the remainder came from
independent consultants (10%), people in government agencies
(5%) and FAO (4%).
4. Name and country of participants with referenced
messages:
Abdel-Mawgood, Ahmed. Saudi Arabia
Acikgoz, Nazimi. Turkey
Altieri, Miguel. United States
Ashton, Glenn. South Africa
Badr, Aisha. Egypt
Beach, Larry. United States
Bhatia, Chittranjan. India
Blanchfield, Ralph. United States
Collard, Bert. Australia
Datta, Swapan. The Philippines
DeGrassi, Aaron. United Kingdom
De Lange, Wytze. The Netherlands
Dhlamini, Zephaniah. Italy
Dollie, Farida. South Africa
Downes, Martin. Ireland
Edirisinghe, Udeni. Sri Lanka
Ferry, Michel. Spain
Franco, Javier. Bolivia
Guimarães, Elcio. Italy
Halos, Saturnina. The Philippines
Heisey, Paul. United States
Herbert, Udo. Nigeria
Hong, Lay Thong. Malaysia
Howe, Bob. United States
Immonen, Sirkka. Italy
Infante, Diogenes. Venezuela
Izquierdo, Juan. Chile
Kambikambi, Tamala. Zambia
Kershen, Drew. United States
Martinez, Alejandro. Australia
Mashava, Dakarai. Zimbabwe
Mayer, Jorge. Australia
Mehra, K.L. India
Mieschendahl, Martin. Germany
Morris, Jane. South Africa
Muhunthan, Rajarathan. Australia
Muir, William. United States
Muralidharan, E.M. India
Murphy, Denis. United Kingdom
Murti, J.R. India
Nassar, Nagib. Brazil
Nazareth, Jagdish. India
Newman, Julie. Australia
Nishio, John. United States
Nwalozie, Marcel. Senegal
Ouf, Atef. Egypt
Owusu-Biney, Alex. Ghana
Perera, Athula. Sri Lanka
Rajmohan, K. India
Reddy, P. Chengal. India
Reece, David. United Kingdom
Sabu, K.K. Malaysia
Sai, Y.V.S.T. India
Sanchez, Myriam. Colombia
Scanlan, Fintan. Italy
Sharry, Sandra. Argentina
Sullivan, Shawn. Mexico
Traoré, Adama. Mali
Van Asselt, Bert. The Netherlands
Vazquez, Chela. United States
Verzola, Roberto. The Philippines
Willemse, Gert. South Africa
Young, Terry. United States
5. Abbreviations:
ARI = Advanced research institute; CGIAR = Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research; FAO = Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; GDP= Gross
Domestic Product; GFAR = Global Forum on Agricultural
Research; GMO = Genetically modified organism; IARC =
International agricultural research centre; IPR = Intellectual
property rights; MNC = Multi-national corporation; NARS =
National agricultural research systems; NGO = Non-governmental
organisation; TRIPS = World Trade Organization agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
6. Acknowledgements
To each and all of the 67 people who submitted messages, a
very special thanks.
Published by FAO, 20 February 2004, (Summary Document,
Conference 8, http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C8/summary.htm)
