[Thanks to Dr. Smith for this excellent, comprehensive and thought-provoking contribution, on draft guidelines for appropriate biotechnology and forest productivity in the developing world....Moderator]

A general recommendation for the use of forest biotechnology in the developing world is difficult, since each situation is unique. Furthermore, the high-technology components of biotechnology cannot be considered in isolation from the economic/technological/political/ethical milieu in which they will be applied. I present below some guidelines from my experience with forest biotechnology. They are organized into 4 situations, according to the type of operation.

Situation 1. Multinational company (MNC) using biotechnology with exotic species:

In this instance, operational costs of the technology should be of minor importance to the local community since they would largely rely on the financial resources of the multinational company except:

a. Where taxation incentives to the multinational from government disadvantage the local or national community.

b. Where the local community has to bear the costs of infrastructure such as ports and roads where the primary benefit is to the forestry operation.

c. Where technologies such as genetic engineering offend local custom (or religion) and lead to conflict with operators who insist that scientific logic will be the only basis for decision making.

d. Where the multinational uses local taxation incentives to subsidize research and development with the particular species, but in fact the work is of greater benefit to its operations in other territories.

e. Where the market for the product is in other nations which have ethical objections to the use of genetic engineering.

For situation 1, the main constraints to the use of forest biotechnology in a developing nation would be political or religious/ethical.

Situation 2. Multinational company using species indigenous to the area of operation:

The local cost would be the same as in 1a - 1e, assuming that the multinational is responsible for the major part of development and operational costs.

In this case, the use of biotechnology should be reconsidered where:

a. The MNC claims intellectual property rights that deny local access to the (unmodified) indigenous species. An example is the US patent for Neem products.

b. The genetic modification of indigenous species poses a threat to the wider natural population of that species.

This situation could perhaps be alleviated by mandatory use of genes to make sexual reproduction impossible for the modified clone. It should be acknowledged here that there is concern in Europe and North America that even simple vegetative reproduction of indigenous species may pose a threat to natural populations by creating an imbalance in the gene flow through mass production of pollen by the (industrially) favored genotypes. Thus, there may even be constraints to the use of micropropagation, somatic embryogenesis, or other forms of vegetative propagation.

Situation 3. Local development of forestry using exotic species:

The driving forces here would be that the exotic species is desirable because it can be grown in an environment free of natural pests, or that a lucrative market for the product can readily be identified. It is assumed that the operation depends substantially upon local funds (or from national government or other funding agency). Given those assumptions, the following questions may be asked of the potential for applied biotechnology:

a. Is a suitable infrastructure in place ? Effective plant propagation and forest establishment practices must first be put in place. Even in developed economies it is not uncommon to see companies investing heavily in "cutting edge" biotechnology research and development while neglecting to upgrade their nursery and establishment operations.

b. Are the promised benefits of biotechnology realistic ? Without independent, rigorous scientific and economic evaluation of a project, a manager can be "seduced" into unrealistic expectations. Scientists often state that with sufficient investment in research and development, a promised technology is possible. Managers usually interpret this to mean that, given the investment, the outcome is assured.

c. Is the preferred technology cost-effective ? Investment in conventional tree breeding will probably give more reliable return in the short to medium term than investment in biotechnology research and development.

d. What are the relative net present returns from investment ? If financial resources are limiting, planting a larger area in a standard crop may give the same or better return than investing in research and development to produce a better quality crop on a smaller land area. If land is the limiting factor, investment in forest biotechnology may be an attractive option.

In addition to 3a - 3d, the points made for Situations 1 and 2 are also usually applicable. In discussions of the application of biotechnology, we should keep in mind that genetic improvement behaves like an annuity. Once the investment has been made, the genetic improvement continues to give an economic return. However this is true for a seed orchard tree or an improved clone as well as for a genetically engineered improvement.

This situation is somewhat different from situations 1-3 since a unique set of conditions may apply. All of the points presented above may have application, but in addition, the following questions need to be asked:

a. Is the indigenous species in question subject to restrictions in use because of local customary or religious practices ? This question must be considered by international funding agencies.

b. What relative weightings should be applied to local benefit versus global obligations ? For example, is it permissible or advisable to deploy locally produced genetically engineered indigenous trees when this may attract condemnation from conservative elements in developed nations ? For instance, genetically engineered pines may be a source of pollen that could compromise the market value of "organic" food grown nearby.

c. Given finite financial resources, how should local authorities be encouraged to allocate these resources amongst the competing demands for indigenous species biotechnology research and development ? For instance, which takes priority: gene conservation, gene discovery and mapping, or genetic improvement of the indigenous species ?

Dr. Dale Smith, MetaGenetics New Zealand.
[email protected]

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [email protected] 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-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:15 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Terminator technology and forest trees: 15

A follow-up to the message of Steve Strauss [5 June].

I have been a strong advocate of the dual value (in respect of preventing ecological side effects and enhancing effective productivity) of suppressing flowering in forest trees. There are several interesting points to consider.

Any genetic transformation is going to incur non-zero risk of adverse side effects on cultivar fitness. About the worst case could be inadvertently knocking out resistance to a new strain of a pathogen which might only materialise after a number of years. With forest trees, if such a new pathogen strain materialised after a number of years of large-scale planting of stock that depended on a particular genetic transformation, the outcome could be dire indeed.

This would parallel what happened with corn blight in the USA in 1970, when the farming industry had become massively dependent on the Texas male sterile cytoplasmic factor for producing hybrid corn. That the 'genetic time bomb' took 20 years to 'detonate' could make such a development far more serious with forest trees than it was with the annual maize crops (although there there was some good fortune that made it much less severe than it might have been). I know very well that past technology was involved, which was not the same as new biotechnology, and that an organelle genome rather than the nuclear genome was involved. However, what it set out to achieve is so similar to something that is now being pursued with forest trees, that I believe it is still a precedent to be kept in mind. I know the probability of such an eventuality is low, but risk is a function of both the probability and the severity of the unwanted outcome, and in this scenario the severity is so extreme that I consider it must be accommodated in any scheme of risk management. Here, as Steve Strauss has pointed out, we have the greatest economic attraction for longer-rotation crops [presumably, he means shorter-rotation crops...Moderator], and yet it is for such crops that the hazard may be greatest.

I agree with Steve Strauss [last paragraph of his message of 5 June...Moderator] that for genetic containment, redundancy of mechanisms to stop flowering has major attractions [i.e. where more than one mechanism is used to stop flowering...Moderator]. However, use of additional mechanisms will increase the risks. To address the potential severity of outcome requires avoiding massive dependence on any one transformation (i.e. achieving risk spread) but the challenge is to combine that with redundancy. I would add that there may be technical factors that could make that challenge particularly great in the case of preventing flowering. Indeed, different strategies may be appropriate according to whether the prime reason for control of flowering is genetic containment or enhanced wood production.

These issues are adressed in a paper of mine that is due out any day in New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 29(3): 375-390.

In the backgound there is the consideration that, with economic risks of the sort that may be entailed here, while business interests may have them well managed (e.g. in respect of global risk spread), the exposure of communities or even countries may not be unacceptable.

Rowland Burdon, New Zealand
[email protected]
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
   +64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
   +64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330

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