I am not sure that saying that poor farmers are facing other constraints than genotype performance makes the debate useless on biotechnology/food security. Structural changes evidently play a fundamental role in improving the poor farmer's situation. But, if poor farmers could dispose of genotypes with identical or better phenotypic characters than their traditional varieties but with a higher yield, for example, I have no doubt that they would be very happy to use them. I do not believe that, at least, in the case of the poorest farmers, "they produce far less than they could" because they lack incentives, as said by Peter Rosset [23 November, message entitled "What are the causes of lagging productivity ?"...Moderator] The poorest farmers do not need any external or market incentives to increase their production: reducing hunger and increasing food security are quite enough. But, of course, I agree with Peter Rosset about the catastrophic effects that international food help or the liberalised international market have, in many cases, on the local prices and on the small producers economy.
It was easy and, I think, useful to denounce the private companies and numerous biotechnologists for their simplistic and dangerous propaganda on genetic engineering (GE) products as miraculous solutions, or the only solutions to fight against hunger. But, this demonstration is not sufficient to discard the question of the interest of GE for their potential contribution to improve the situation of the poorest farmers. I do believe that there is no general answer to that question as there is no one type of poor farmers. There is a large diversity of situations. Peter Rosset has spoken of one type of farming system. Unfortunately this traditional complex system with a multi-risks integration strategy has often disappeared, for fragile mono- or oligo- culture farming systems that are much more market dependant.
Anyway, I do not think that complexity is incompatible with the interest and adoption of new technologies. Complexity will need deeper analysis (multidisciplinary and global) and, as indicated by Peter Rosset and Saliem Fakir, direct participation of the farmers themselves. In these conditions, new technologies adapted to the farmers needs and to the environmental and economic constraints can be defined. In definitive, I consider that the debate about the contribution of GE has to be done case-by-case, otherwise it will remain too vague to go farther than an ideological debate. It should focus on each GE product: their technico-agronomic interest but also all the questions related to their use in precise farming systems and environment. The inventory proposed here by FAO constitutes a good starting point for this debate.
Peter Rosset has underlined the serious defaults of the Bt modified crops [23 November, entitled "Environmental risks are important for third world food security too"...Moderator]. But, biotechnologists say that they will be able in the future to integrate more than one Bt gene. In that case, the risk of resistance arising, that constitutes the principal fault of this GE system, would disappear. But how long it will take before they succeed ? Will the public centres have the means to do such work for the varieties cultivated by the poorest ? Will they have the money to study the environmental and health implications of such plants? Will it not be more profitable to use these financial research resources to develop new agroecology methods, for example?
Michel FERRY
Directeur scientifique
Station de Recherche sur le Palmier Dattier
et les Systèmes de Production en Zones Arides
Apartado 996
03201 ELCHE
Espagne
tél: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
e-mail: m.ferry@wanadoo.es
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The value of new genotypes
I have read the many recent mails with great interest, and would like to make one point about the value of new genotypes to any agricultural system - no one should doubt their value. To suggest otherwise is absurd, whatever the other problems in any particular country. Just look at what people anywhere grow now, and ask where it came from. Then try to imagine the situation if the introduced genotypes were not there.
People have been taking new crop species and genotypes from one part of the world and using and adapting them in others successfully for a very long time. Biotechnology is another means for generating new genotypes. It clearly should not be seen as the only one, nor in developing regions necessarily even a major one, but it is there and should not be ignored where relevant.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 3:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Availability, Access and Patents
The issue of availability and access to the products of biotechnology in developing regions has been briefly mentioned in a few mails [e.g. Fakir, 22 November ; Immonen, 23 November...Moderator], but I would like to cover it in more detail now, and maybe generate more of an in-depth discussion on this topic. [Excellent idea, but please ensure that the discussion is placed firmly in the context of the theme of the conference i.e. 'can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?'....Moderator]
The vast majority of biotechnological products are either patented, or the processes used to generate them are patented, or both. Not only by private companies either - as Saliem Fakir observed [22 November], the 'research' of many 'public' organizations has acquired a commercial slant with their results routinely being patented, presumably in the hope of making a profit - perhaps to avoid possible future funding squeezes. If it has not happened already, it will soon reach the point where it is nearly impossible to use any aspect of biotechnology for improving any major crop species without infringing a patent somewhere in the process.
This creates two main problems. The first is that any 'late comer' to the technology may be frozen out more or less permanently, even assuming they can obtain the information needed to start. Sure, patents expire, but by then new ones will probably apply, so fast is the technology moving - so countries which have not invested in biotechnology already (including most developing countries at a guess) will probably not be able to make up the lost ground ever. Secondly, anyone wishing to use the products generated will have to pay for them - and by definition those areas with food supply / quality problems cannot afford to pay.
On the other side of the equation, the development and distribution of crop varieties is an expensive business, whether biotechnology is used or not. The seed business is 'high volume and low margin' in the jargon of the markets, and if there's not enough profit in it, then the companies involved will just drop out. Not just drop out of developing new varieties, but drop out entirely - further limiting choice, which can hardly be a good thing. This is not so far fetched - the stock market valuations of seed companies right now vary from nearly zero to less than zero. The bigger, more-diversified companies are already trying to offload their seed businesses, and the only reason they haven't already done so, is because no one wants to buy them. The next step may be simple closure. Biotechnology has been in vogue for many reasons, but one reason it adds value to be added to otherwise low value products. So, if biotechnolgy is forced out of the equation, then so most likely will many of the other products too.
Food insecurity ultimately revolves around a lack of prosperity and like it or not, prosperity has never been sustained where the private sector is weak (whether due to cultural, political, or corruption problems or whatever), so even if it seems tempting in the short run to ignore ownership issues surrounding crop varieties, it is unlikely to help in the longer run, and may actually make things worse. Small farmers may not seem so dependent upon multinational seed companies now, but it is hard to imagine that remaining the case indefinitely, if only because their [the small farmers] present situation is so often unsatisfactory, and they may actually be the ones who would benefit the most from biotechnology, if applied to their needs.
Equally, it is not a systemic solution for the private interests involved to waive their fees on a piecemeal basis, as individual requests come in, however laudable the thought. Agriculture in 'developing' countries varies from the many small farmers barely making ends meet (and not forgetting the non-farming population) to large well equipped farms competing on international markets, often in the same country. How to target the good intentions? If no fee is paid, who will pay for any follow-up monitoring needed? Whatever one thinks about such things, farmers in the US have complained that they are charged more for Roundup resistant soybeans than farmers in Argentina (double I think), for instance. With international markets being what they are, super-desirable crop varieties, whether biotechnologically derived or not, will tend to become commoditized (i.e. have a single price internationally), thus making charitable give-aways difficult without putting somebody out of business. Possibly unless the variety is sterile or similar, which is controversial too.
Other major issues for which there isn't space to go into on this message are the conflicting legal systems in different countries that apply to agriculture, patents and patented crops; differing, but deeply held, cultural views of agriculture; plant breeders rights; whether public research should be commercially orientated and how to fund it if not; should governments fund the development of near-commercial products and if so how can that be balanced with private sector interests; what role is there (if any) for some international biotechnological co-operation agency ?? And probably much else besides.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]