Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

[Thanks to Ancha Srinivasan for another good message of direct relevance to the conference theme...Moderator]

As very few posts have addressed the last question posed by the Forum administrators [Whether some biotechnologies are more (or less) suited to certain regions in the developing world than others], I will try to make a few observations and I would appreciate any comments.

Biotechnology research and development for addressing the needs of developing countries should obviously vary according to the biophysical, agro-ecological and socio-economic settings and constraints (lack of budget, skilled human resources, etc.). However, in most cases this does not happen, unfortunately: perhaps because of bias(?) associated with previous training of developing country researchers in developed countries, or because of high probability for getting funds from organizations in developed countries. Issues of great importance to developing countries have often received little attention by researchers in even developing countries. It is also true that some worthy proposals on native or relatively unknown (unknown in the developed countries) crops have often been rejected for funding.

Moreover, there is too much duplication of efforts on similar topics at various organizations, and most of these projects are often supported by the same or similar organizations in the developed countries. Even within a country such as India, there have been cases where many researchers tend to approach the problem in exactly the same manner without taking regional needs and priorities into consideration. This also leads to dilution of research effort in many cases. Many biotechnology scientists in developing countries (this applies equally to scientists in developed countries!) often lack field exposure and are reluctant to spend any time in the field to know more about local problems. Because of the long gestation period between project identification and product delivery of most biotechnology projects, people often forget to keep the end-users' interest. The aim should therefore be to combine projects that can benefit farmers in the short run with those that will be useful in the long run.

Since the population in developing countries is expected to increase by at least 90 million per year during the next 2 decades, there is definitely a need to increase productivity by whatever means possible, including biotechnology (considering that it is only one of the several approaches). I believe that in the high potential productivity zones, as in South Central China or North West India, there are two major tasks: To develop biotechnologies that will help in maintaining the high productivity already achieved (maintenance research) and to develop technologies that can raise yield ceilings (strategic research). As an example for strategic research, I wish to quote the example of a recent success story, in which researchers (from USA and Japan) attempted to genetically modify rice to mimic the C4 plants using three genes from maize. However, there is no need for conducting such strategic research in all rice-growing areas of developing countries.

Research on transgenic crops, in my opinion, should be confined to areas, where they are most likely to succed. For example, Bt cotton technology developed in USA was mainly for large-scale cotton farming systems. Bt varieties perform well only in areas with irrigation, and with plastic mulching. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that those varieties were unsuccessful in unfavorable cotton areas such as Hebei province in China. In regions with low productivity, such as in Deccan Plateau in India, Southwest China, Northeast China, and parts of Africa, and in areas with crops that have not received much attention by researchers in the developed countries, the emphasis should be on the generation of low-risk and low-cost biotechnologies such as micropropagation rather than genetic engineering (e.g., tissue culture for henequen production in Yucatan Province, Mexico; tissue culture in Banana, Kenya; tissue culture for neem, custard apple, aonla and medicinal plants in Andhra Pradesh, India;). I heard that the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) is now compiling a book on success stories of low-cost biotechnologies relevant to developing countries. FAO and other organizations must encourage similar initiatives. International organizations should also support capacity-building efforts in low-cost biotechnologies in such areas, rather than allocating resources to transgenic technologies. In all projects to be supported in these areas, a case-by-case evaluation is necessary to determine whether the needs of the resource-poor target group can be promoted by biotechnology methods and whether the farmers will ultimately be able to afford products developed from such research.

Ancha Srinivasan, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Regional Science Institute
4-13, Kita 24 Nishi 2, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0024 JAPAN
Tel: +81-11-717-6660 Fax: +81-11-757-3610
E-mail: ancha@vtt.co.jp or ancha_s@yahoo.com

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 2:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

I thank those who have commented on my posts, both directly and indirectly. I wish to clear up two misunderstandings.

One is that genetic modification (GM) technology can solve all of the problems being experienced in the third world such as land fragmentation, water shortage, vitamin deficiency and climate problems. GE is not presently, and in all likelihood will not in the future be, a panacea. It is misleading to portray it as such and those that continue to do so (mainly the commercial interests) serve only to deepen divisions. We cannot rely on GM to solve problems that are usually the result of poor policy, planning and political input. There may be a place for biotechnology to solve various aspects of various problems. As I stated before, it would be shortsighted to attempt to apply these "solutions" without having extensive proof that they are not merely short-term corrections, which may only exacerbate long-term problems. We must be extremely cautious not to replace one poor policy with another.

The second is that we have to make solutions to problems "profitable". This is a narrow capitalist-paradigm based philosophical view. Whilst capitalism may seem to work fairly well for most of those contributing to this conference and for the north, the point of this conference is to look at the suitability of biotech to developing or southern nations. It is important that we move away from this profitability bias, as it is narrow and limiting. Solutions such as integrated farming, micro-propogation and other systems should be pursued by other means than the commercial system. If we rely on capitalism, Africa will never rid itself of bilharzia, Malaria and other endemic diseases; it is not profitable. Desertification is encouraged by intensive agriculture, so more is not necessarily better. Life vs profit is at the centre of the globalisation debate and must be considered in this one.

Instead we need a system that draws on global organisations (for e.g. the UN, which itself needs a serious re-evaluation of its funding and structure, especially with the reluctance of a capitalist US and EU leadership to contribute meaningfully to reduction of the impact of their policies) working in concert with local role players, be they governmental or NGOs. The vagaries of the capitalist system negatively affect southern nations and people. Solutions to these problems are pivotal in order to arrive at meaningful long-term solutions to present global inequalities.

Biotechnology may offer solutions to certain of our problems but we cannot misplace our hope on a system that, in most cases, results in unknown and unquantified risks (or benefits) to people and the biosphere.

Finally to respond to Edo Lin who unfortunately seems to see any attempt to broaden the discussion from the narrow confines of Cartesianism as an attack on science. He seems mired in dualism. The points of view are not only for and against, there are many shades besides. Further, I can cite examples of leading scientists touting the success of GE technology whilst references and studies have either not been published, peer reviewed or even attempted (e.g. Makatini Flats [a region of the KwaZulu-Natal province in southeastern South Africa....Moderator] bollguard cotton trials cited as huge success at the BIOY2K Conference (and in other fora) ).

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have heard these same scientists saying "I have heard that there were many more insects around in this area than where chemicals were used," in order to promote GE crops. Where is the scientific process in that and where is the level playing field ? This nonsense serves only to encourage the polarisation to which I originally referred.

Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology
ekogaia@iafrica.com ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 3:52 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Appropriate biotechnologies: a view from Ethiopia

[Thanks to Dr. Selassie for this very clear and comprehensive message...Moderator]

I have been closely following the debate on the application of biotechnology in agriculture with great interest.

The question is not whether biotechnology as a whole is useful to agriculture or not. It is crystal clear that molecular techniques can be employed to speed up the breeding process and micropropagation techniques could be employed to rejuvenate and multiply important agricultural crops (especially root crops) as well as indigenous trees. But the use of GM crops is controversial, not least from the point of cost. In principle there is nothing wrong in the use of genetically modified (GM) crops. But it must be done after a serious risk assessment (environmental and health risk) and cost benefit analysis.

Myself, I am not convinced with the relative advantages of GM crops in comparison with conventionally improved or even local varieties, although I am not against their use as long as satisfactory risk assessment is conducted before release. It is true that GM crops may have shown comparative advantage in large mechanized farms in North America or Argentina. But that hardly justifies the use of GM crops by small scale farmers, who live in marginal areas of the developing countries.

One feels dismayed when some people advocate, using the prevalence of hunger in developing countries, the use of GM crops. They see GM crops as a panacea to world hunger. They believe that the use of GM crops can alleviate poverty and insure food security (see letters posted by Edo Lin and Niko Alexandratos) [The message referred to are presumably those of 30 March (Edo Lin) and 15 and 16 May (Nikos Alexandratos)..Moderator]. All these assumptions emanate either from not understanding the real causes of food insecurity and poverty in the world and the complex agricultural systems in developing countries, or from intentional desire to promote the case of the multinational companies such as Monsanto or Novartis (who claim to solve food problems of the world by commercializing GM crops).

To suggest that the use of GM crops can solve the problems of food security is naive and an over simplification of the problem (see Niko Alexandratos's latest contribution). Overproduction of maize and soybeans in Argentina or the USA and their cheap export will not solve hunger and poverty problems in other developing countries. We all know that there has been overproduction (surplus) in the developed countries before the introduction of GM crops. There was hunger and poverty in many developing countries then and they still continue to exist, because the unfair trade relations continue. It is a question of fair trade and justice, which is the real cause!! This is the fact one has to face.

The problem of population pressure, land fragmentation, soil fertility degradation etc. can neither be solved by using GM crops. Let me ask a genuine question. Are these problems the result of lack of reliable crops or lack of appropriate agricultural practices, good infrastructure (basic research, extension services, communication, market access, etc and development policies ? I leave the answer to the reader. Andrew Kiggundu from Uganda [19 May] wrote: " third world governments do not have the money to finance such activities (conventional breeding research I presume)". If they do not have the capacity to finance basic research, how can one expect them to have a capacity to embark on genetic modification of crops? Or how can they build the capacity to assess or monitor GM crops (if one assumes that ready-made GM crops can directly be imported to developing countries) if they cannot finance conventional agricultural research ?

I believe that the capacity of developing countries in terms of finance and knowledge base is different. For poor countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, it may be better to rationally use the scarce resources available on more conventional, but appropriate technologies than advocating the use of GM crops (without having the scientific basis and regulatory mechanisms to assess and monitor the impact of the GM crops on the environment and human health), because the cost of acquiring the GM crops and the subsequent follow up will not be less than the use of non modified crops. Another issue is that nobody is quite sure that the GM crops will yield better than conventionally improved or local varieties without external inputs.

Let me share research findings we got from a limited experiment. We are engaged in on-farm conservation of farmers' varieties (landraces). We asked/encouraged our partner farmers to follow good agronomic practices (water and soil conservation, use of organic fertilizers, appropriate soil preparations, on time sowing, on time weeding, on time harvesting etc.). We compared the yield of the farmers' varieties with that of improved varieties (grown with chemical fertilizers). There was a slight increase in yield of the improved varieties. But when the cost of the improved varieties, fertilizers and other inputs was considered, there was no significant advantage in the use of the improved varieties. In fact, the use of chemical fertilizers is harmful to soil biota and soil fertility at the end. The use of narrow genetic-base, improved varieties also leads to genetic erosion. I will not be surprized if the GM crops show the same result.

In order to opt for the use of GM crops there must be a clearly visible comparative advantage over other crops. The high productivity and relatively low operational cost (if the cost is low at all) of GM crops from large mechanized farms in Argentina and the USA can not be simply extrapolated to be the same in highly fragmented land holding and traditional farming systems, which dominate in developing countries. Here the solution to maximize agricultural production is not to use GM crops, but to intensify the system using local resources. Therefore, It is very important that developing countries adopt and develop biotechnology based on their priorities and capacities.

To oppose biotechnology in general is baseless. Biotechnology is going to stay with us, but we must cautiously select the techniques that are most relevant to our situations and priorities (I have marker assisted selection/screening and micropropagation techniques in mind). Finally I would like to commend Werner Schenkel [e.g. messages of 4 April and 12 April ...Moderator] for his contributions. His advice is well taken.

Haile Selassie Yibrah (Ph.D.)
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBCR)
P.O.Box 30726
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
mebio@telecom.net.et

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:17 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Appropriate biotechnologies: a view from Ethiopia

I have read Dr. Selassi's comments [25 May] with interest and agree with much of what he says. I have a question on the micropropagation techniques, however. If, by the word 'micropropagation', you mean tissue culture, I would like to make you aware that in the discussions here it has been stated by different sources, among them EPA toxicologists, that tissue culture may cause important mutations and other changes in the plants - a number of which even after several generations are still present. I therefore am not sure that tissue culture is a good path to take in plant breeding.

Wytze de Lange
Biofood consultancy
Amsterdam
the Netherlands
geno@zap.a2000.nl

Return to Logs of Conference 1 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.