[Thanks to Rowland Burton for his clear thoughts on some important issues....Moderator]

From Rowland Burdon, New Zealand Forest Research Institute, [email protected]

1. Ecological risk factors:
Further to Sam Johnston's contribution [11 May], I agree that there are risks. However, they must be weighed up against not just expected benefits but also the risks associated with use of alternative technologies, which could easily be greater, in terms of a function of probability and potential severity. Some of the risks are indeed remote possibilities and, as pointed out by Berthold Heinze [11 May], must be weighed against the role of natural selection in conferring resilience. While I have never engaged closely with the Gaia hypothesis, I would see natural selection as being a powerful force against the effects of anything less than high levels of adverse genetic contamination in organisms.

It should also be remembered that new biotechnology, especially genetic engineering, can serve as a research tool to guide the application of more conventional technology, rather than having to be applied directly with the risks that this would specifically entail.

2. Significance of short rotations (such as can often be achieved in developing countries):.
I agree with Dag Lindgren [4 May] that length of rotation can be important. But in respect of both genetic engineering and the use of QTL markers its significance is indeed ambiguous. Short rotations (or short generation cycles), while reducing the risks associated with genetic engineering and favouring the detection of QTL, can also allow spectacular rates of genetic gain through conventional breeding.

3. Rejuvenation:
I endorse Dale Smith's position [11 May] on the specific question of the potential benefits of rejuvenation. I have long seen it as a much undervalued goal, which could feed into a range of technological applications. Intriguingly, if developed reliably it could feed back into propagation technology that would typically fit very well with developing countries.

4. Political and Institutional aspects:
Much may depend on the agencies involved. If large foreign investors are involved, they can in principle put in place a well-balanced technological base, whereby the biotechnology is properly coupled with complementary, field-based programmes in which there is a proper infrastructure of genetic management. However, for such an organisation, the operation in a single developing country may be a small part of a global risk spread, in contrast to the the risk exposure for the individual country and especially the local community(ies). In this situation there will also be Intellectual Property issues, while the regulatory mechanisms for risk management (which is not straightforward anywhere) are likely to be weak.

If it is not a wealthy foreign investor that is involved, but essentially local institutions instead, there can arise a mismatch between sophisticated laboratory work, conducted by young, overseas-trained personnel, and a dearth of the field-based infrastructure that is needed as a platform for successful, low-risk application of the technology. If, in a scramble for scarce funds, the biotechnology drains money away from the infrastrucure the net outcome could be downright deleterious.

Such problems in developing counties are not specific to new biotechnology, but the advent of such technology is likely to make them more acute.

[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: Friday, May 19, 2000 4:44 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 9: Forest Biotech vs Forest Conservation ?

Forest Biotech and Forest Conservation are separate but inter-related issues. I do not believe that it is possible to fully address one without reference to the other, and that attempts to do so run the risk of talking at cross purposes.

Firstly, before this discussion goes any further, I think it will be useful to cover some of the background points and definitions that I hope we can all agree on, so here goes (and maybe others can modify them or add more) :

In no particular order

1. The world's wild forests are under immense and increasing pressure, and are being destroyed at an accelerating and unsustainable rate.

2. The term 'Forest' in English is confusing, as it does not distinguish between native forests, ancient forests, virgin forests, recreational forests, cultivated forests, and forestry plantations. For the sake of argument I will either refer to 'wild forests' to mean all of the above except 'cultivated forest' and 'forestry plantations'. The term 'forest' alone refers to either type.

3. The world's forests (but most especially the wild forests) have a major influence upon the atmosphere, climate and weather patterns, and are major reservoirs of ecological diversity - the trees own, and the other flora and fauna that are dependent upon them.

4. If the world's wild forests continue to disappear at the present rate, there may well be severe and unpredictable consequences for us all, besides any 'quality of life' issues relating to the degradation of the environment - which are harder to quantify. These will be felt first and foremost by the peoples currently living in or near such forests.

5. Much of the surviving wild forests is in developing countries, especially (but not only) in the tropical regions.

6. The demand for timber, and other forest products (e.g. pulp for paper etc.) is increasing sharply - much faster than the current level of sustainable supply. Note that in developing countries the demand for simple firewood represents a major (if not the major) demand for forest products.

7. It is not clear precisely who owns much of the wild forests of the world (at an individual level), especially in developing countries - although many people are dependent upon them.

8. Most timber and primary forest products are relatively bulky compared to their value, making long distance transport before processing (to higher value products) untenable.

9. Exports of high-quality timber from the wild forests of developing countries to wealthier countries represents only a small percentage of the total deforestation problem - although a much larger percentage in terms of the monetary value accruing to those economies from such practices.

10. In addition to the demand for forest products, there is a accelerating demand for land (agriculture, housing, industry, roads) that needs to be met, and is most severe in developing countries.

11. The human population of the world is now above 6 billion, and is likely to at least double (and maybe treble) before levelling off. The bulk of this population increase will occur in developing countries.

12. The populations of developing countries naturally and justifiably have an expectation for improving their standard of living, besides the needs of mere survival during times of crisis. If people's short term needs cannot be made compatible with preserving wild forest areas, then such forests are most unlikely to be preserved, or in fragmented forms at best.

13. Even at current levels of consumption (for all of the above reasons), the world's forests are only able meet to demand by 'mining out' of the wild areas - a trend that is likely to increase, unless the problems are addressed seriously.

I will not say much more in this mail, for fear of making it too long, but I think that it is clear that (a) time is not on our side, (b) doing nothing is not an option, and (c) proposed solutions must answer the requirements and problems listed above, otherwise they will fail (and are failing) - however well intentioned. The ultimate price of this failure(s) will be high.

I see no contradiction in considering myself an environmentalist and a forest biotechnologist. I do not believe that effective conservation of the earths remaining wild forests can be achieved without the application of forest biotechnology, but equally forest biotechnology in, and of, itself does nothing to guarantee the protection of wild forests - without addressing the other issues and problems involved.

Dr Trevor Fenning.
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
[email protected]

p.s. my current project here involves the transformation of Norway spruce (Picea abies) for modified terpenoid bio-synthesis, to study the ecological and defence role of the compounds in conifers. Previously, I have been associated with programs to transform elms (Ulmus spp.) for Dutch elm disease resistance (c/o The University of Abertay-Dundee, Scotland) and wild cherry (Prunus avium, c/o HRI, UK).

[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 ]