[While posting Simon Southerton's very clear message, we will also take advantage of the occasion to announce that the conference will be extended by one week. At this stage in the conference, there have been 28 messages posted, from 15 different participants and from 10 different countries. More than half of the messages were posted in the last two weeks, so in order to provide participants (there are currently 165) with the fullest possibility to continue to exchange views, comments and experiences on the theme of the conference ('how appropriate are currently available biotechnologies for the forestry sector in developing countries'), we have decided to extend the conference by one week, so that the last day for posting of messages will now be Friday 30th June.

Just as a reminder of the main ideas behind the conference, we suggested in the background document that there were three main areas of recently-developed biotechnologies that could be used in the forestry sector (i.e. A. biotechnologies based on molecular markers; B. biotechnologies based on vegetative propogation and C. genetic modification of forest trees). We then suggested that messages concerning the appropriateness of the different biotechnologies for the forestry sector in developing countries could include any of the following elements:

- The added value of biotechnologies: what is their impact on the production of goods and services, and on food security.
- The existence of good operational and long-term tree improvement programmes, in which biotechnologies can be important tools.
-The availability of financial resources and the ability and commitment to use the biotechnologies over a given time period.
- Institutional capacities: existing capacities and the requirements for capacity building.
- The environmental impact of biotechnologies and their impact on human health.
- The relative costs (financial, social, political or environmental) of the biotechnologies versus the relative benefits (productivity, food security or otherwise).

All messages posted are also put on the Forum website and can be seen on http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c2logs.htm ..........Moderator]

From Simon Southerton
CSIRO Division of Forestry and Forest Products
Canberra, Australia.
Simon.Southerton@ffp.csiro.au

While it is difficult to predict the risks associated with a particular transgene, I think we can be certain that if we reduce the genetic base in forestry plantations too much, then there will be problems. I agree with Steve DiFazio's assessment (June 7) that the risks of narrowing the genetic base are a significant barrier to the application of biotech forestry in developing countries. (It is currently a significant obstacle to genetically modified (GM) forestry in developed countries.) The major constraint being the considerable expense of clone development and testing, as pointed out by several other contributors. It will be hard for those generating these clones to resist the temptation to recoup those costs by excessive deployment. I think most would agree that biotechnology has the most to offer in extensively-managed, high-intensity plantations, which in developing countries, are typically operated by multinationals.

I don't agree with the view that biotechnology can help solve wood shortages in developing countries. In many developing countries there are still considerable productivity gains to be made through provenance selection, breeding, clonal selection (Dr Hong 8 June) and simply shifting to plantations rather than harvesting native forests. The gains that can be reliably made via these traditional approaches shouldn't be overlooked in a rush to apply biotechnology, which like most new technologies is rarely undersold. I think it would be unwise for developing countries to squander scarce resources on biotechnology at the expense of proven low technology research such as breeding, provenance collection and preservation, etc.

From our experience, many developing countries are growing eucalypts from a very narrow genetic base. The original trees were often imported in the 19th century, frequently as ornamentals, as noted by Trevor Fenning, (June 14). Massive improvements could be made by simple selection of better performing provenances with established track records.

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]