[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org. For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see Forum website.
Note, participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 11:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 67: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?

Most of my comments in my earlier messages [nrs. 54 and 55, November 27; message 61, November 28...Moderator] were a bit generalised. I don't doubt the ability of technology, including biotechnology, to eventually find solutions for all the current bottlenecks. Given time, we will also manage to make biotechnology safe and more acceptable, but all this only in the long run. But as the Moderator keeps reminding us, it is not the issue we are to discuss here. If I have understood it properly, one of the issues is: Where do the developing countries put their scarce money for research in agriculture. I believe that for them this is essentially a short-term problem. I am optimistic that the world will find ways to remove poverty and hunger at least by the middle of this century. But the sooner the better.

To come back to Prof Blanchfield (message 65, November 29) comments: Drought can, besides climatic factors over which we have no control as yet, also result from man-made deforestation and due to our meddling with the traditional or natural means of water harvesting, as it has in many parts of the world where precipitation is not a constraint. Salinity, likewise, has also resulted from faulty irrigation practices in several parts of the world. There are other man-made situations for which we look to biotechnology for solutions. Extremes of temperature (not man-made though) may be a problem in a fraction of the total arable land area right now. If, right now, biotechnology can find a way out for agriculture in Sahara or Gobi or Antartica, I have no misgivings whatsoever. In India, at least, vast stretches of otherwise fertile land for agriculture has been left unutilized when some intervention at a simpler level would have reclaimed it. Shouldn't we consider if is practical to have a more judicious re-allocation of funds and technical expertise towards achieving this end? How do we devise a robust and workable strategy for tackling poverty, hunger in the really short-term and keep this insulated from the `fashion' and the big `bad' corporations. The rest is fine with me.

Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State, India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 12:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Message from the Moderator

This conference, the 8th one hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum, began over 2 weeks ago and finishes on Wednesday 11 December. There is, therefore, only limited time left and the purpose of this message is to emphasise what themes are (and are not) relevant for posting in the remaining 9 days of the conference.

As we mentioned previously (message 37) there has been a tendency in some messages to focus on whether biotechnology (particularily genetic modification) is appropriate for developing countries. This is NOT the theme of this conference, which is entitled "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?". In the remaining time of the conference, messages and comments will only be posted that deal directly with this theme. The agricultural biotechnology debate is very large, but this conference deals only with one area within the big debate.

Resources for agricultural research are very limited in developing countries and, as a consequence, their policy makers are faced with a series of very difficult choices. How much importance should they give to biotechnology research, how should they allocate the biotechnology research resources with respect to the different agricultural sectors or to the different kinds of biotechnologies available. How should they prioritise the different kinds of problems (and specifically those affecting poor farmers) that might be addressed by the research? How should developing countries carry out this research - by focusing on their NARS or in collaboration with other countries in their region or with the private sector or the universities in the developed world? These are the kinds of issues that we wished to see raised and discussed throughout the conference. A list of specific questions we wished to see tackled was included in Section 4 of the Background Document and this is repeated below. Please consult this before submitting further messages.

In the last couple of days, messages have been received that do not deal directly with the conference theme. Exceptionally, they will be posted now (messages 68 to 71) but similar messages will not be posted during the remainder of the conference. If people wish to comment on the messages, they may contact the authors directly.

Moderator, Conference 8
e-mail: mailto:biotech-mod4@fao.org
FAO website http://www.fao.org
Forum website http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp
FAO Biotechnology website http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 12:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 68: Re: Priority setting in agricultural research // aircrafts

I would like to respond to some remarks made by Dr. Bhatia (message 53, November 27) and Jorge Mayer (message 66, November 29) who both seem to think that genetic engineering (GE) is the best available tool and leads to "improved" seeds.

The question is whether this view is correct. Breeding techniques, especially since the second World War have led to crops that needed an increasing amount of fertilisers and chemical inputs in order to survive. They appeared to be more disease and pest prone. GE is now being promoted as the solution for these pests, whereas, of course, it is the question if it is not another step in a fundamentally wrong direction. Many of the transgenic "events" in the United States have already been withdrawn again because they did not work so well as intended.

Concerning stakeholders views, I would like to point the participants to the declaration this week from consumer leaders from 20 African countries who held a conference on biotechnology in Lusaka, Zambia. The Lusaka declaration can be found on http://www.consumersinternational.org

Wytze de Lange
XminY Solidarityfunds
De Wittenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
wdl (at) xminy.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 12:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 69: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives

Bob Howe, Independent Organic Inspector, Northeast USA

The contributions in message 66 by Jorge Mayer are, like all the contributions promoting biotech crop research, in assumption that the choices to be made are clear. That political, social and corporate special interests will have no impact on how these choices are made, and that the scientific community will know best. The suggestion that the small farmer will benefit is preposterous. The suggestion that unwanted gene flow will not occur, and that indigenous plants and animals necessary for the cycle of life will feel no effect is even more preposterous.

Prof Ralph Blanchfield (message 65, November 29) refers to biotech as the screw and screwdriver, and traditional breeding and progress in agriculture as the hammer. My impression is that the traditional approach is more likened to knitting needles, and biotech represents a sledge hammer. One does not apply a sledge hammer to a delicate, intricate design. Polarization occurs, often and certainly in this case, because people who try to be open to new technology are dismayed by the promises that the new technologists suggest, when they see the new technologists don the rose colored glasses and deny the factors actually directing their result. The opponents to biotech have been criticized as being too emotional and unrealistic. I suggest that it is the researchers who are thus. The researchers who depend on the flow of money to continue a livelihood, and, who, because of the tremendous excitement a new discovery can bring, are anxious for that next breakthrough, that next high.

Thank goodness for polarization. Polarization suggests that there is no middle ground. Polarization suggests that the research carrying the ball has been unable to show proof that there is any benefit, let alone sufficient even to offset the damage that has occurred and the potential for even more. Polarization suggests that the benefit to the small farmers is not there, and developing countries will not feed their hungry through this research. No public funding should go toward this research. If we give money to this research we are pursuing the wrong objectives.

Bob Howe
28 Brodhead Road
West Shokan, NY 12494
USA
earthorganic (at) aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 12:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 70: GM crops in gene centres

This is from Dr. K. L. Mehra, Former Director, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, N. Delhi, India and Former Expert FAO/IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute), Rome, Italy. I have been assisting the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture for the last ten years. I prepared the initial negotiating draft for a code of conduct on the use of biotechnology as it affects the genetic resources. I modified the draft based on the discussions of different countries. It is still being negotiated.

In the context of the present conference, I have the following comments: Let us start with the assumption that genetically modified (GM) crops are more productive than non-GM crops. Thus, the developing countries would wish to grow the GM crops. There are fears and apprehensions. The exact, critical proofs are lacking in many cases. These fears are multiplied when GM crops and products are for human and animal consumption.

The developing countries can be divided into two groups, viz. one in which the closely related wild taxa of the target-cultivated species also occur. The center of origin of a target crop may lie in the developing country. The GM crops in such a situation would hybridize with the wild species (and also with the local varieties of the target species), if those could cross in nature. This would lead to contamination of local land races/varieties. The GM crop may also cause allergy to the consumers. Thus, if the wild relatives of crops do not occur, like the presence of Old World crops in the New World and vice versa, one could grow the GM crops and if the crop grown is for export purpose, the developing country does not have to worry, except wherein the GM crop could hybridize with the varieties that are grown in the developing countries. There is also a feeling among farmers that the importing countries may not import the GM crop. Like the Zambians fear that European Community may not import the GM maize. They also fear that even the traditional maize varieties coming from GM-growing countries may not be acceptable to Europeans. Mostly the precautionary principle is applied.

There is the fear of the appearance of super weeds. Many developing countries do not have regulatory agencies - even the infra structure to regulate the release and use of GM crops. The writer is preparing a review on the nature and extent of out-crossing that occurs between different crops and their wild relatives. We need to set up proper experiments to answer the question of out-crossing and allergy. In my view what is not permitted in an exporting country should not be exported to another country. The FAO code of conduct when agreed should help this problem, because the Cartagena agreement has many gray areas.

Dr.K.L.Mehra,
38 Munirka Enclave,
New Delhi-110067, India,
E mail: klmehra (at) hotmail.com

[This theme of GMOs and Gene Flow was covered in the previous Forum conference, entitled "Gene flow from GM to non-GM populations in the crop, forestry, animal and fishery sectors"...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 December 2002 12:11
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 71: GM crops and Argentina

My name is Sandra Sharry. I am working at C.E.Pro.Ve, La Plata University, Argentina. I am a biologist, and I am teaching and researching mainly in plant biotechnology. I am a National Coordinator of REDBIO/FAO.

I agree mainly with Swapan Datta [e.g. message 23, November 20...Moderator] on the point that biotechnology research in developing countries should focus on solving technical problems of each country's agriculture, but I would like to talk about Argentina which is a special case.

Argentina is midway between a developing and a developed country. We are a "transgenic country", since 98% of the soybean cultivated in Argentina is transgenic. Most farmers have adopted the new technology, and applied direct sowing, a practice which has several advantages over traditional practices. Direct sowing prevents soil erosion and optimized water utilization, simplified weed and pest control, improving the agronomic practices.

Today, Argentina is in a difficult economic and social situation. Many people are under the line of poverty, even starving. Soybean is playing an important role in nourishing a lot of people in poverty conditions. As an example, the program from AAPRESID, "Solidary soybean" - through it free soybean is been served at several Children School refectories. Many Universities like La Plata, between others, are developing new alimentary products from transgenic soybean.

Jorge Mayer (message 66, November 29) wrote: "It will be very important to accurately identify the special needs of small farmers with respect to germplasm improvement and then to decide which is the best technical path to achieve the desired results. Biotechnology will not always be the answer but it definitely will in some cases." The Argentinian case is a typical example of why transgenic crops could help in some special situation.

On the other hand, I do not believe that transgenic crops contribute to diminish biodiversity. On the contrary, I think that monoculture in general, over native ecosystems, diminishes biodiversity. Today, we blame transgenic crops for everything, but, in fact, bad culture practice is to blame, and the problem is basically economic and social. A lot of factors contribute to this situation: corruption, politics, globalization, population growth, etc.

In the same way, I think, like other participants, that responsible use of new plant biotechnologies could contribute to a more sustainable and environmentally compatible agriculture. Responsible development and use of modified plants are essential to protect the quality of life and the environment for an ever-growing world population.

Lic. Sandra Sharry.
Experimental Center of Vegetative Propagation.
Faculty of Agronomic and Forest Sciences.
La Plata University,
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
National Coordinator REDBIO/FAO
ssharry (at) netverk.com.ar

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 December 2002 11:00
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 72: Optimal allocation of resources - technologies

I am Bill Muir, Professor of Genetics Purdue University. I am a co-author of the recent report of the National Academy of Science's National Research Counsil "Defining Science Based Concerns of Biotechnology" [Available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084393/html/ ...Moderator] and speaker at the PEW Charitable Trust symposium "Biotechnology in the Barnyard" [See http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0924/ ...Moderator]. I teach courses in both conventional and biotechnological methods of plant and animal improvement.

The answers to the issues posed in this conference can be addressed using principles of economics and genetics. Essentially, given that there are limited resources and time, what is the optimal allocation of resources. Optimal allocation of resources are different at different levels of development. To define the optimal allocation of resources, the following must be defined: What are the alternatives technologies, what are the costs of each, and what are the likely benefits from each.

The alternative technologies are classical breeding methods (domestication), molecular methods to assist classical breeding methods (Marker Assisted Selection-MAS), and transgenic. The cost for the first technology is low to moderate and can be implemented in all regions. The initial cost of MAS can be exceedingly high in the initial phases while searching for genes associated with important traits. After discovery, the cost is then reduced to genotyping only those few loci which were found to be important. Finally for transgenics, the initial cost is high in developing the genetically engineered (GE) organism, but costs associated with environmental risk assessment can be greater than the cost of developing the organism, but a necessary part. After development and risk assessment, recurring costs are low. Because of the cost of environmental risk assessment, those regions with limited budgets may bypass this phase, but that could be a critical mistake as the long term harms of some GE organisms could outweigh the short term gains. I feel this will be the exception rather than the rule, but nevertheless needs to be examined.

The real question is relative benefit, because the benefits of the alternative technologies differ by region, i.e. the base levels of agriculture, commodities, inputs, weather, and cultures differ. The use of classical breeding initially has the highest benefit/cost ratio because so much can be gained with relatively low costs. The greatest impact on the green revolution was crossbreeding. The increase in yield from crossbred rice allowed Asia to feed it's masses. Crossbred maize in the early to mid 1900's allowed North America to double and quadruple production per acre. In the latter part of the last century, improvements in plant breeding in developed countries were largely through improved culture methods and inputs (nitrogen). In contrast, animal improvement by classical means has made steady improvement throughout the last century and continues into the present, without increasing inputs. In a recent symposium I challenged plant breeders to use advanced quantitative breeding techniques, more like animal breeders, utilizing within breed improvement methods, such as BLUP [Best Linear Unbiased Prediction - a statistical method using information on the animals (phenotype, pedigree, herd, year etc.) to identify the best genetic individuals for use in the next generation...Moderator]. Cross breeding via the inbreed-hybrid technique is a dead end, utilizing random genetic drift to differentiate inbred lines. Plant breeders have made little advances since the development of crossbreeding and need to look toward variety improvement as a sustained method of increasing yield and, to be applicable to developing countries, it needs to occur without increasing inputs beyond that available in the region. Sufficient genetic variability exists to accomplish that goal in nearly all species. What is needed is a sustained drive towards that goal and not jumping on every bandwagon that comes along that diverts attention from that goal. Molecular genetic techniques, such as MAS, should be viewed as fine tuning only after coarse tuning using appropriate breeding methods.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 December 2002 11:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 73: Research into tracing GMOs

My name is Jagdish Nazareth, a doctoral student in agriculture at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India.

I would request this group to consider that biotech is not unleashed on innocent populations until a system of markers is placed in every GMO, so that we can know who made it and from where it came. This system of markers should be of international specification. Then we will only have to worry about the rogue GMOs that people may unleash for whatever reasons, rather than all GMOs.

Along with the markers we should have an international understanding under the World Trade Organization of the 'polluter pays' principle, so that those who may profit from the release of a GMO or biotech product (both firms and their governments) will also be held liable for their adverse consequences, should they arise.

The analytical capability to make the necessary causal attributions should be an international public good available to all nations and peoples everywhere. The research to create this capability should be what we should all strive for together.

Jagdish Nazareth
D-0716, Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
INDIA 380013
Phone: 91-79-632 6716
jagdish_nazareth (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 December 2002 11:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 74: Transgenic research

This is Swapan Datta from IRRI

"What should be the role and focus of biotechnology (transgenic research and product development) [the 5-word insert is by Swapan Datta...Moderator] in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?".

My response is as following:

- Transgenic research is an extension and modern tool of today's plant breeding so it is inevitable for the developing countries to achieve towards food security.
- Once again [see message 36, November 22...Moderator], I would emphasize the need of support from the FAO, World Bank, EU (the European Union), USAID (the United States Agency for International Development) etc. to help in developing the infrastructure of doing research in food and biosafety and access to the intellectual property for the benefit of developing countries.
- Biotechnology or transgenic research has not developed with an objective to prevent poverty but as an efficient technology that, if used properly with management, may help in boosting the economic growth of the farmers and eventually will help all.

Swapan Datta
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
Philippines
S.DATTA (at) CGIAR.ORG

[Note, biotechnology and transgenesis are not synonymous. For the purposes of this Forum, biotechnology is defined as follows: According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, biotechnology means "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use". Interpreted in this broad sense, the definition covers many of the tools and techniques that are commonplace today in agriculture and food production. Interpreted in a narrow sense, as is often done and as is done in this Forum, biotechnology mainly covers technological applications involving reproductive biology or, secondly, the manipulation, or use, of the genetic material of living organisms for specific uses. This definition covers a wide range of diverse technologies including, for example, the use of molecular DNA markers, gene manipulation and gene transfer, vegetative reproduction (crops and forest trees), embryo transfer and freezing (livestock) and triploidisation (fish)...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 December 2002 11:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 75: What should be the role and focus of biotech research?

Following the Moderator's request to focus on the central question of this conference I would like to make the following remarks.

Dr Bhatia (message 53, November 27) refered to the Dutch-financed biotech programmes in 4 countries where, in a so-called participatory process, farmers, scientists, NGOs and civil servants together do the priority setting on what should be researched. Since we are a Dutch NGO, we have asked the ministry involved about how this programme realy works out. We were told by the ministry that this in reality means that 90% of the projects are classical biotechnology. Only 10% would be invested in transgenic research. However, we also learned that through this programme the Dutch seed industry is being promoted in these 4 developing countries. Thus, for example, Nepalese farmers were being sold tissue culture potato plants from the Netherlands until the Nepalese farmers decided that this was too expensive for them and it was far better for them to obtain potato seeds from India. Recently a Dutch radio programme on the research project in Colombia showed that farmers are being kept in the dark about what the scientists actually do in the laboratories. The farmers are asked to gather information on a certain identified problem and then the scientists take the plants to the laboratory and no farmer has a clue to what happens there. It will all depend on the views of the scientists which approach is taken. Scientists/civil servants who have knowledge of the agroecological approach would most likely look for other solutions than scientists who think genetic engineering is a good idea. In short, we fear that the Dutch programe is being used to sneak in transgenics through the backdoor.

For us it is up to societies in countries in the South to determine which research direction to take, and this decision should be based on all available knowledge about the biotechnologies and all possible other ways to achieve the wanted result. Then a cost/benefit analysis needs to be made. At this moment, it seems to us that classical biotechnologies (fermentations, vermiculture etc.) are much more worthwhile, beneficial and cost effective than fancy new technologies like tissue culture (which, like GE, gives somaclonal mutations) and transgenics with all related problems of intellectual property, safety questions etc.

Wytze de Lange
XminY Solidarityfunds
De Wittenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
wdl (at) xminy.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 December 2002 15:33
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 76: Establishing biotechnology priorities in agriculture for Sri Lanka

My name is Athula Perera from Sri Lanka. I am the professor of agricultural biology and the Director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center of the University of Peradeniya.

I was a member of one of the national biotechnology committees that established biotechnology priorities in agriculture for Sri Lanka which is now in the public domain. We practiced a 'bottoms to top' approach in this endeavour, realizing that our farmers are not yet exactly familiar with the potentials of biotechnology. We wrote to all the institutes in the national agricultural research systems (NARS) and other related institutes and requested them to discuss with relevant stakeholders and inform the committee of their future plans and priorities in the field of biotechnology. We corresponded several times, obtaining clarifications etc. and the data received was analyzed. The committee then decided on the national priorities by considering the real problems faced by the farming community and deciding which techniques could help solve/minimize these problems. After much hard work, we finally came up with the following categories: (only some examples are given)

1.Improvement of crop and livestock productivity (e.g. Molecular markers for pest & disease resistance in rice, early selection in rubber etc.; Wide hybridization in chilli; Dihaploid production in rice, tea, coconut)

2. Reduce cost of cultivation of crops and management of livestock (e.g. Disease diagnosis in rice, papaya etc.; Disease diagnosis and production of vaccines in livestock; Production of biofertilizer, biopesticides, bioherbicides)

3. Biodiversity of Sri Lanka (e.g. DNA fingerprinting of national collection, medicinal plants, livestock etc.; Bioindustry - use of biodiversity to produce pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals)

4. Environment (e.g. Biodegradation of waste/pollutants; Processing of waste)

5. Genome analysis & transgenics (e.g. Isolation of genes from rice, tea, medicinal plants etc.; Transgenic plants - rice, rubber; Transgenic animals)

6. Bioinformatics

7. Nutrition (e.g. Improvement of nutritive value of food; fermented milk products)

As and when new areas become important they will be added, such as the production of transgenic ornamentals for export. We encourage collaborative research, cutting across all barriers, such as for example, the production and use of biopesticides/biofertilizer in organic agriculture, as long as it helps solve national problems.

Proposals to achieve these priorities will be called for and selected by a process of bidding, as resources available are so scarce. The scientific Analytic Hierarchy Process can be used in the selection procedure. We intend to keep this as a dynamic process. I must add that the members of the committee functioned in a purely honorary manner and the response of the scientific community/institutes to this exercise was truly magnificent.

Athula Perera
Director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center of the University of Peradeniya.
Sri Lanka
profaperera (at) sltnet.lk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 December 2002 09:23
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 77: IPRs - Review of TRIPS 27.3(b), Research Exemptions & Training

Biotechnology plainly has an important role to play in developing country agriculture. As has been noted, however, intellectual property rights (IPRs) can present challenges to both the development and deployment of biotechnology products and the use of biotechnology tools such as marker-assisted selection. The Fifth Ministerial Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO), scheduled to be held in Cancún on 10-14 September 2003, could provide an opportunity to address IPR issues affecting developing countries. Although some of the energy for change seems to have been spent following the 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference, developing countries may wish to take up the long-delayed review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement (WTO's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), which requires WTO member states to provide some kind of "effective" intellectual property protection for novel plant varieties. In addition, developing countries should explore their options under TRIPS Article 30, which states that:

"Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties." [See http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm ...Moderator].

This article leaves open the possibility for nations to adopt broad research exemptions to intellectual property infringement, which could be of benefit to developing country agriculture.

Whatever changes may occur in the IPR environment, however, it is certain that the issue of proprietary claims to research products will not simply go away. Those who work in developing country agriculture must develop the capacity and sophistication to deal with modern IPR systems and to negotiate and do business with institutions and companies that hold vitally needed technology. Training in these fields, by qualified instructors at affordable costs, must be made available to those who need it in developing countries.

Shawn N. Sullivan
Intellectual Property Counsel
Cimmyt, Int.
Apdo. Postal 6-641
06600 México, D.F., México
Tel. +52-55-5804-7554 Fax +52-55-5804-7585
E-Mail: s.sullivan (at) cgiar.org

All views expressed herein are solely my personal opinions. [A reminder that the Rules of the Forum state that participants are always assumed to be speaking on their own personal behalf and not on behalf of their employers, unless they state otherwise...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 December 2002 11:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 78: Research for fruit farmers in Egypt

Thanks to the Moderator for directing discussion to the main theme of the conference, so I am here again to continue.

One of the main issues is the need of small farmers. Small farmers differ from country to another. Small farmers in my country owns less than 5 feddans [1 feddan = 4200 square metres = 0.42 hectare...Moderator], poor farmers owns about 200-400 m˛. Both of them make up the majority of small farmers. The curve of other owners descends till we reach the lower percentage who own more than 100 feddans and may reach thousands of feddans for companies in new projects. These big companies have no problems in developing biotechnological research according to their needs and applied new biotehnology research.

I will talk from my point of view and life experience. What about the major sector of small farmers: Their first priority is offering flour (mainly wheat and, secondly, maize because they bake their own healthy clean bread at home) and rice from their own plantation to feed their families, then they can sell the remainder to get few money for continuous life needs (food, education, health, clothes). This costs too much compared with what they gain. Looking for this situation, we can find that they always tend to have higher crops. They also try to keep some of their seeds for the next season's plantating to decrease costs of the new season's plantation (very important to them). If they have not enough seeds or facilities, they go to the agriculture banks to borrow with profit, which cause great problem for them. The solution is by increasing yield, as we know in Egypt by vertical increase. Safe biotechnology research can support vertical crop increase.

About fruit farmers, there are small farmers who try to have more money by growing the highest priced fruit in the season. This causes a decrease in prices of this fruit after a few years because many of them grow it, so most of them change to another fruit tree. Therefore, economics affect the presence of one fruit or another. On the other hand, the fruit grower could not wait for a long time for research to solve problems, as happened when fire blight attacked pears. They substituted it with other fruits and destroyed pear farms, so applied biotechnology research must be preceded by or accompanied with needs, social and economical studies. This leads to individual research studies in each country.

About my field, tropical fruits, there is a lack in studies of resources conservation. The biotechnology research is concerned with tissue culture of date palm and banana, little research were done on other fruits. My research in biotechnology followed evaluation of native cherimoya, improving it by pollination treatments and selection of new cultivars from old existing trees followed by tissue culture, micropropagation for distributing new and old cultivars, mutations, haploid are understudy for tolerant, new cultivars and seedless fruits. Breeding programs were held for other fruits. In my opinion, these are the right steps for research programs (i.e. studies first on native resources and trials to select and improve, followed by biotechnology research as we have done).

Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt.
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 December 2002 14:01
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 79: SOFA 2003

Dear e-conference subscribers,

The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) team at FAO would like to take this opportunity to thank all the contributors and the moderator for their active participation in this discussion. In particular, SOFA would like to thank all the distinguished participants, particularly those from developing countries, who are dedicating time to follow the conference and are sharing their knowledge and experiences with others for the success of the conference (and ultimately of the SOFA report, which will address the issue of "Agricultural biotechnology, meeting the needs of the poor"). [As specified in the Background Document to the conference, "The outcome of the conference will also be used in the preparation of The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2003, which is one of FAO's main publications, providing an annual report on current developments affecting world agriculture"...Moderator].

We feel that this conference is an important step in broadening our consultations with you, key stakeholders in the public debate on biotechnology. We view it as an opportunity to strengthen the foundation upon which we can develop a common understanding of developing countries' needs.

We also feel, however, that some of the questions posed in the Background Document have received less emphasis than others. We think it is important to recognize the existence of different capacities and different needs when trying to assess a range of research strategies available to developing countries - see the Background Document and classification developed by Byerlee and Fischer. We also think that developing country research programmes are uniquely placed to understand and address the needs of poor farmers who face difficult economic and agro-ecological conditions. Do you agree? On the basis of these observations, we now call your attention to two specific questions posed in the background document and we would greatly appreciate your inputs on them:

- Individual developing countries differ greatly in their capacities to do biotechnology research and in the resources they have available for such activities. How important are these differences for the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda?

- The needs of small farmers are generally being ignored in the so-called "biotechnology revolution" How can the biotechnology research agenda of developing countries be focused towards their needs? What concrete actions can be taken?

Fulvia Fiorenzi
ESAC (SOFA)
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
fulvia.fiorenzi (at) fao.org
www.fao.org
www.fao.org/es/esa

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 05 December 2002 10:20
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 80: Research into bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides

This is from Fintan Scanlan, horticulturist. My comments are based on some 20 years experience in crop production in tropical, sub-tropical and semi-arid climates.

I would like to draw your attention to the potential benefits of carrying out research into biotechnology for small farmers in the context of conservation agriculture and other sustainable practices such as crop rotation and green manuring while minimising the use of non-renewable inputs especially chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers that may be harmful to farmers and consumers and damaging to the environment.

As you might know, conservation agriculture (CA) advocates minimum disturbance to the soil through reduced tillage or zero tillage systems and strives to maintain a constant soil cover by virtue of a growing crop and retaining crop residues. Conventional tillage, especially in hot climates, leads to rapid depletion of organic matter (OM) and loss of residual soil moisture. Tillage also causes a sudden and dramatic change to the micro-climate in the soil, wreaking havoc with the myriads of organisms that live in the soil. While this may be desirable to control weeds and macro-organisms such as leather jackets (i.e. range crane fly larvae), what of the untold damage caused to the less visible microbial life in this hostile environment!

CA on the other hand greatly facilitates the preservation of OM, the lifeblood of the soil, resulting in a living soil and conditions favouring soil fertility while also countering soil erosion. It is indeed pleasing to note that CA is being practiced in many agro-ecological zones and socio-economic contexts worldwide, including Africa, Asia and Latin America (notably Brazil).

Biotechnology has also made substantial inroads in the development of a range of bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides, reducing our dependency on chemical products. To quote Drs. Teruo Higa and James Parr, "An area that appears to hold the greatest promise for technological advances in crop production, crop protection and natural resource conservation is that of beneficial and effective micro-organisms applied as soil, plant and environmental inoculants". [In "Beneficial and effective microorganisms for a sustainable agriculture and environment" (1994), http://www.agriton.nl/higa.html ...Moderator]. Research has shown that the inoculation of beneficial micro-organism cultures to the soil/plant ecosystem can improve soil quality and soil health leading to increased yield and quality of crops. These products do not contain exotic or engineered organisms but are made up of mixed cultures of naturally occurring species that exist in the soil.

One can appreciate the sustained benefits that come from combining CA with inoculants of beneficial microbes to the soil/plant ecosystem where the soil micro-climate is not punctuated by tillage and where OM levels favour proliferation of biological activity. However, it may not be in the interest of bio-product manufacturers to promote CA, where the benefits of such products are likely to continue through natural regeneration under favourable conditions, thereby potentially reducing sales of their products.

I believe there is much potential in promoting applied/adaptive research into these technologies as they represent minimum input systems, affordable to poor resource farmers. Such technologies can contribute greatly to sustainable agriculture/agro-ecology while nurturing, rather than compromising, the environment. When associated with other desirable practices including promotion of biodiversity, multiple cropping systems, indigenous plant species, improved germplasm and integrated production and protection (IPPM), they can have much impact in addressing household food security and creating sustainable livelihoods in Low-Income Food-Deficit countries.

Fintan Scanlan, M. Agr. Sc.
Food Security Officer, FAO
fintan.scanlan (at) fao.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 05 December 2002 15:15
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 81: Re: Research into bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides

This is Jagdish Nazareth, doctoral student in agriculture at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India.

In 1987 I thought of a theory of indirect nutrition by which one is able to nourish the rhizospheric soil micro-organisms that nourish the plants. From 1989 to 2002, I was able to develop and test the technology for converting locally available crop residues and animal manures into probiotic fertilizers which do this. These trials and experiments have been done by more than 320 farmers in 60 villages in 7 districts on 40 crops, with crop yields increasing under rainfed agriculture conditions from 20 - 300% against existing local practice controls. Nearly all the above farmers can be considered small farmers. Some of these trials have been done through other non-governmental and parastatal organizations. In these experiments it has been noted that plants have been able to resist flood and drought (in one case both together), demonstrate remarkable resistance to epidemic fungal disease in paddy, resist pest attack and produce superior quality and quantity of desired crop components. (In many instances comparative controls have been chemical fertilizers and pesticides.)

The cultural practice compared to other forms of chemical and organic agriculture becomes simpler and labour conserving. In rainfed agriculture, risk of total crop failure and uncertainty of crop yields can be reduced considerably. In irrigated agriculture, irrigation intervals can be lengthened (typically from 7 or 8 days to 10 to 15 days even for a sensitive crop such as hybrid cotton for seed production). Plant secondary metabolism can be stimulated in ways that are not possible with conventional chemical or organic fertilization practices. Pest resistance can be improved to the point where pesticide application is uneconomical, thereby making organic agriculture feasible. There are implications for improving micronutrient malnutrition in large animal and human populations. On-farm biodiversity improves considerably.

I therefore propose that agricultural biotechnology do more research on the nutritional approach to soil micro-organism and plant interactions. The recommendations will be simpler, more low-cost, robust and easier to adopt by small farmers than other methods proposed thus far and probably more generalizable to many agricultural environments.

Jagdish Nazareth
D-0716, Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
INDIA 380013
Phone: 91-79-632 6716
jagdish_nazareth (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 06 December 2002 09:47
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 82: Re: SOFA 2003

[NB NB NB NB - We are now in the last week of this e-mail conference, which finishes on Wednesday 11th December. Before it closes, we especially encourage those who have not yet done so, to share your views and experiences with us on this important theme - what should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries. The emphasis in discussions so far has been on the crop sector, so we especially encourage inputs from people involved or interested in livestock, forest trees, ago-industry and fisheries to speak up and be heard...Moderator]

I would like to address the 2 questions highlighted by Fulvia Fiorenzi (message 79, December 4).

It is true not only that "Individual developing countries differ greatly in their capacities to do biotechnology research and in the resources, they have available for such activities", but also there are great differences inside each country. For this reason I suggest concentrating on this in the few last days so that participants can help from their point of view. Each one can explain what his developing or developed country needs and what they can offer. I mean that developing countries may offer human and plant resources, but they need facilities, funds and training. In addition, developed countries may offer facilities, training, and funds but need more resources to enrich their own and may need more human resources. Therefore, both developed and developing countries are complementary to each other. On the other hand, both of them can help in fighting hunger of less developed or poor countries.

About my country (from my experience and view), we have many ambitious young people (pre- and post-doctoral, trained and non-trained) in the field of biotechnology research. The main subjects during the last few years concern biotechnology research in different fields. In fact, it looks like fashion, as mentioned in this conference [E.M. Muralidharan, message 61, November 28...Moderator]. At the same time, it is very good to follow the advances in biotechnology research. However, it is not arranged research by individual subjects (if not belonging to funded program). In my field (tropical fruits), there is a lack of biotechnology research in my area except individual research, a lack of laboratories, chemicals and facilities. On the other hand, there are many agriculture engineers needing work, some of them work temporary and some are qualified.

Question 2: i.e. "The needs of small farmers are generally being ignored in the so-called "biotechnology revolution" How can the biotechnology research agenda of developing countries be focused towards their needs? What concrete actions can be taken?"

I talked previously about the needs of the small farmers in my country and how they are looking for increases in their income and yield by applying new research, under one condition - a safe biotechnology for their children. What kinds of biotechnology research can help small farmers: research to increase yield, small quick projects which they prefer for increasing income. The projects that can be held by women farmers at home are very important. Solving the problems of finding work for the youth is very important but needs funds. Some of our big projects and big companies help, but there is still need to use biotechnology research, projects and funds for more help to small farmers.

Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 06 December 2002 17:02
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 83: Research on organic biotechnologies

I would like to ask all researchers and research institutions to give more importance to research on organic biotechnologies - those technologies which will pass the organic standards. Organic products are much sought-after in the market, they are clearly better for the environment, and they are healthier for the farmers, their families and the consumers.

As far as markets are concerned, there is absolutely no comparison between organic biotechnologies and transgenic biotechnologies. The high demand for organic products is growing at 10-15% in many countries, in many cases with little subsidy or even despite government bias against organics. Everything seems to indicate that organic biotechnologies deserve a better share of research attention, particularly since today very few scientists and research institutions are involved in such research while much of the biotech research funds (I've heard figures as high as 90% from some scientists) go to transgenic technologies.

I've read more than once researchers in this conference (including several from the rich countries) invoke poor farmers as justification for their transgenic work. I work with a national federation of small farmers which has officially expressed its opposition to GMOs and its preference for organic technologies and sustainable agriculture. Most other national farmers federations in the Philippines and I believe in many other Third World countries have taken a similar anti-GMO position. A few have taken a very wary position. Many small farmers organization worldwide have said that GMOs are a threat to them, due to the patenting of GM seeds, GMO contamination, and GMO market rejection. So, transgenic researchers: please stop using farmers as excuse for your transgenic research. You harm them twice: first, when the seeds are privatized, fields are contaminated and farmers' GM products rejected in the market; and second when such harmful work is done in their name, the victims. Please consider switching to organic research instead.

Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 09:35
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 84: Realistic priorities needed for biotech research in developing countries

[A reminder: The last day for sending messages to this conference is Wednesday 11 December...Moderator].

This is from Dr. K. Rajmohan, Project Coordinator of Biotechnology at the Kerala Agricultural University, India.

I feel that while allocating resources for biotechnology research, the developing countries should possess concrete ideas about the immediate and long term benefits to their resource-poor farmers. It should have a bearing on their wealth of plant genetic resources, as well. Unfortunately, very often such exercises lack seriousness and go out of dimension, in an attempt to mimic the biotechnology research of the developed countries, ignoring the difference in priorities.

Crop biotechnology seems to have the foremost priority in most of the developing countries like India. The priorities among other sectors should be judged on the basis of the benefits to the common farmer, rather than to the society at large, as he continues to be the most important unit for development.

Molecular markers seem to be the most important area of biotechnology for the developing countries, in view of the rich plant genetic resources most of them have. They can also be utilised for disease screening of planting materials. Tissue culture is the next important, as a useful technique for the improvement of the genetic stocks of crops. However, it has several inherent limitations, including the problems in maintaining quality standards and in setting up enough micro-propagation units for meeting the demands for planting materials.

Research on genetic modification should be strengthened only in selected institutions, in collaboration with developed countries. And the agenda for genetic modification should be very much relevant to the farming situations and demands of the country.

Prioritisation of the research objectives should be made at the regional level, rather than the national level. The regional personnnel and farmers should have a say in the research and development programmes in biotechnology. Regional cooperation of biotechnology research institutions is highly essential. Unfortunately such cooperation is often missing and leads to inefficient utilisation of available resources and duplication of research aspects.

International collaboration is very much essential for biotechnology research in developing countries, especially in human resource development and establishment of facilities. However, such collaborative efforts should have definite relevance and benefit to the developing countries. Adoption of already available techniques for the benefit of the developing countries should only be a short term objective. The ultimate aim should be for generating independent results and products. Cooperation between the public and private sector institutions within the country is essential for the efficiency of resource utilisation and capacity building.

Dr. K. Rajmohan,
Associate Professor,
Kerala Agricultural University,
College of Agriculture,
Vellayani,
Trivandrum 695 522,
Kerala,
India
rajmohan33 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 10:27
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 85: More focus needed in forest biotechnology research

This is from Dr. Muralidharan in India.

Most forest trees in the tropics (other than a few, like eucalypts and teak) are relatively recent in their history of domestication. Even the knowledge of their phenology is inadequate. [Phenology is the study of periodic biological phenomena, such as flowering in plants...Moderator]. Genetic improvement in these species is therefore mostly in the early stages. There is a tremendous potential for biotechnology to improve our understanding of the genetics of these long-lived plants and therefore to quicken the pace of genetic improvement.

Speaking of the situation in India, in some areas of research in biotechnology of forest trees, like tissue culture, a certain volume of knowledge has been generated in the past few decades but which, for want of concerted efforts, has not been brought to a level where it can be put to any application. In their preoccupation with the academic aspects alone, several university departments have carried out research on a wide spectrum of tree species, but these are mostly restricted to PhD work or short term projects and the focus is on getting out a few publications and not on solving any real hurdle in tree improvement or propagation. A lot of times, the work done is superfluous in that an alternative technique of micropropagation is being developed when other means already exist. Funds and efforts would have been better utilized had there been a coordinated programme with specified objectives and long-term perspective in selected tree crops and with the involvement of tree geneticists, biotechnologists and other experts.

Because of their long rotations and influence on the environment, biodiversity etc., the consequences of applying biotechnology to tree crops needs to be carefully studied. [A rotation is the planned number of years between the formation or regeneration of a tree crop or stand and its final cutting at a specified stage of maturity...Moderator]. I, for one, will prefer development of tree cropping system where a diversity of tree species is ensured (followed by clonal diversity within the species) and natural means of renewing soil fertility is retained. This, particularly in developing countries, will cater to the diversity of needs of the local people for tree-based biomass besides pulping and timber. It appears as though the objectives of all current tree improvement programmes is to narrow down this diversity to a select, few, fast-growing, high-yielding clones growing with high inputs and in a sterile environment free of pests and weeds (read other insects and plants). We need to change to a more people and eco-friendly forestry which can meet the needs of the people in the region. And the role of biotechnology has to be defined and limited in this scheme. A very difficult proposition indeed.

Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State,
India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 11:00
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 86: A farmers perspective - research

This is from Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia.

In order to find solutions for agriculture, we need to examine carefully what we are doing wrong now. As a farmer from Western Australia, I find our industry threatened by the proposed forceful introduction of genetically engineered (GE) crops to Australia. I certainly agree with Roberto Verzola (message 83, December 6) - "transgenic researchers: please stop using farmers as excuse for your transgenic research". We are being promised the world with this technology when we are offered very little. We need to be perfectly honest, genetic engineering has not proved itself to be the "wonder-crop" that we are promised and our long term sustainability is seriously threatened by the proposed introduction.

The aim of research should be to enable the user (the farmer) to remain viable in the long term and the end user (the consumer) to be confident of what they are eating. If successful, research will ultimately benefit the financial well-being of researchers and developers.

Scarce funding allocation preference should be directed to non-GE biotechnology that offers the same promises of disease, frost, drought and insect tolerance that we are needing. It is very obvious that consumers are not accepting this technology and GE crops are not being accepted. In order to be profitable, farmers must be able to sell their produce without market restrictions.

It appears pointless for every nation to spend huge resources to develop particular varieties with particular traits that will no doubt be duplicated by other countries. There should be an international registry of research that prevents this duplication and coordinates aims. Perhaps purchasing rights could be arranged at different stages of development?

Priority in research should be given to impacts from seasonal variation. Farmers need consistency in income to remain viable and drought is the worst problem that causes total crop loss. We are currently experiencing our worst drought in history and we have never experienced such dismal yields in our crops. Consistency of supply should be the aim of research and development which will assist in providing a constant income to farmers.

Many of the other problems of farming have a solution that can be remedied by other means, providing farmers are able to afford them. In order to afford better sustainability options, we need income from consistent supply of reasonably priced commodity. It is far more expensive and less effective for governments to subsidise farmers (in order to allow the commodity price to drop - in order to encourage food prices to drop) while increasing taxes (to enable the government to subsidise farmers).

Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers
P.O. Box 6
Newdegate, 6355. WA
Australia
newseeds (at) treko.net.au
www.non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 11:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 87: Where to put the buck

This is from Jorge Mayer, CAMBIA, Australia.

Where do we put the buck? It sounds as if we had resources to allocate. The reality is that more often than not this is not the case. During my time at CIAT [The Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, in Colombia, is one of the 16 Future Harvest centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research...Moderator], I experienced one of the worst collapses in funding for international agricultural research, not only in the CGIAR System but in the world, I would say. Scientists of all disciplines were trying to solve problems of small farmers in a holistic way, taking advantage of supraregional similarities to prioritize projects. After Rio 1992, the world decided that natural resources were more important and that national programs should be independent enough to manage agricultural research by themselves. We will pay dearly (with a major delay in getting rid of poverty worldwide) for the loss of opportunities caused by this shift in funding.

Natural resources versus agricultural research. There is no question, you can not take one or the other, it's both or bust. The same with organic vs. biotechnology. So, what if we have only one buck, where do we put it? Maybe we should be asking how can we double the buck to achieve what has to be done, otherwise it's like asking, how do we die slower, more painfully?

In many cases technologies do not need to be created de novo, they have only to be applied to specific problems. Information access in the digital era must be maximised. One of the sources with high potential is Geographic Information System (GIS), driven to the "excess". We can add layer over layer of information, encompassing all sorts of geographical (soil, climate, altitude, precipitation, etc), biological (native flora, crops, livestock, etc) and demographic (population, population density, GDP, exports, imports, etc) data. The questions that can be answered combining these data go beyond what farmer communities can do based on their experience.

Many of these data come precisely from the study of natural resources. Inter-continental parallels can be drawn about agroecological zones, long range weather predictions can be made. Adding layers to this information, we can now include available genes, intellectual property (IP) information by countries, predictions on environmental danger of deploying certain gene/crop combinations, etc.

Summing up, we need to make sure that information is highly networked and made accessible to even the small farmers in appropriate ways (nodes). If done correctly, these farmers can also provide feedback to make these all-encompassing databases even more comprehensible. It's up to us to decide how complex in content and how simple in its use we want this database to be.

Jorge E. Mayer, PhD
Principal Scientist & IP Analyst
CAMBIA
GPO Box 3200
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Phone +61 2 6246 4516
Fax +61 2 6246 4501
Email j.mayer (at) cambia.org
'Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International Agriculture'
An autonomous, not-for-profit organization affiliated to Charles Sturt University
http://www.cambia.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 11:28
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 88: Fish based integration systems

I am Udeni Edirisinghe, a lecturer in fisheries from University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

I have already indicated (message 43, November 25) that biotechnology has not moved in the way we in the developing countries look for. Our environments are getting polluted due to importation of different technologies from developed countries and, as with the green revolution, we learn the lesson once it is too late.

In Sri Lanka we are now threatened with tilapia and wild guppy, which have invaded most of our natural water bodies. If methods to remove them from these unwanted resources could be worked out, I believe it would be very useful. Funds for such research is lacking and such research would benefit many countries since these are problems most of us face today.

Development of different integrated systems, as done in China, which should suit the specific ecosystems are invaluable. Why can such research not be taken under biotechnology? Rice-fish integrated systems, which have been developed in Sri Lanka cannot be taken to field levels due to lack of funds once again. Such systems encourage integration and are always environmentally sound.

Thus there are many areas where there are no arguments and which all can agree to work on. If this conference can at least identify areas where there is common agreement, that would be an invaluable exercise.

Dr. Udeni Edirisinghe
Dept. of Animal Science
University of Peradeniya
Sri Lanka
udenie (at) pdn.ac.lk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 13:19
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 89: Re: Realistic priorities needed for biotech research in developing countries

This is P. Chengal Reddy, Hon. Chairman, Federation of Farmers Associations, A.P. (FFAAP) representing a farmers organizations in Andhra Pradesh, India.

I congratulate Dr. K. Rajmohan (message 84, December 9) for his suggestion that research institutions in developing nations should have collaboration with international institutions and also private research institutions including Multi-national corporations (MNCs) in order to develop area specific transgenics suitable for us. India has crops, such as oil seeds, minor millets etc., in the drought-prone areas, which are of great importance to the small and marginal farmers. Adding water stress tolerant gene to these crops in semi-arid areas will be immensely beneficial. We have to accept the fact that providing financial resources for Bt/transgenic research is very very difficult. Further, scientists have no freedom to take on-the-spot decisions in conducting research. The bureaucratic systems in our countries are too complex for scientists to do research as they seems fit.

FAO may initiate dialogue with the local groups and international organizations and private sectors. It will be useful in the long run.

P Chengal Reddy
Hon. Chairman
Federation of Farmers Associations, A.P.
Flat No.209, Vijaya Towers
Shanthinagar,
HYDERABAD - 500 028
India
Tel: 91 40 331 9643 / 337 8046
Fax: 91 40 331 9643
E-mail: indian_farmers_federation (at) yahoo.com
Website: www.indianfarmers.org

[Note, Dr. Rajmohan in message 84 did not refer specifically to collaboration regarding transgenic research. In his message, he discussed different crop biotechnologies available (use of molecular markers, tissue culture, genetic modification), how prioritisation of research objectives should be made and, in the final paragraph, wrote "International collaboration is very much essential for biotechnology research in developing countries, especially in human resource development and establishment of facilities. However, such collaborative efforts should have definite relevance and benefit to the developing countries. Adoption of already available techniques for the benefit of the developing countries should only be a short term objective. The ultimate aim should be for generating independent results and products. Cooperation between the public and private sector institutions within the country is essential for the efficiency of resource utilisation and capacity building"...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 14:34
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 90: Synthesis of e-conference

This is from Michel Ferry. May I propose a short synthetic analysis of this e-conference?

It was based on the assertion that "biotechnology clearly offers tremendous promise for addressing key problems in food and agriculture". This opinion figures in the Background Document to the conference. The Moderator has from time to time called our attention to debate not on this opinion but on proposals for the biotechnology research agenda. Fulvia Fiorenzi (message 79, December 4) has called again our attention to debate on this issue, that will be addressed in the SOFA 2003 report "Agricultural biotechnology, meeting the needs of the poor".

Considering this starting point, it is evident that this e-conference has taken place in the context of a basic misunderstanding: the main debate has been on whether or not biotechnology, and particularly GMOs, should be or not be a research priority for the developing countries. Most of the biotechnologists (but not all of them - look at Denis Murphy's message 48, November 26) consider logically that it is a priority, but a lot of other persons consider that it is not at all a priority, or have serious doubts about this opinion. This debate has been initiated in the previous FAO Biotechnology Forum e-conferences but it has not been concluded. In these conditions, to try to define a biotechnology research agenda seems to me premature.

For my part, I think that the pro-GMOs people have not yet demonstrated the validity of their view because their arguments are too general. Perhaps, in some peculiar cases and with some specific precautions, to use certain GMOs could be a priority for the poor (Fulvia Fiorenzi asks if we agree that poor farmers should be the target group? The answer is evidently yes but I doubt whether the existing and projected research programmes are really always focused on the poor's needs. Don't forget that the poor have become officially the target group of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) only few years ago). But usually the biotechnologist's arguments are not based on specific cases and a multidisciplinary global approach. When sometimes they defend specific cases (see the "Golden Rice" case), they often confound hypothesis with proven results; give attracting and imprudent extrapolations to their preliminary results; do not mention any inconveniences or risks and, more than all, claim that their research will present applied benefits in the very short term.

By the way, short term or long term vision constitutes probably one of the main point of divergence in this debate: to reduce the number of poor by half by the year 2015, new varieties (GMOs or not) are not necessary as the FAO Director General himself has said many times. But what about 2050?

But in countries (Sub-Saharan countries, particularly) where the number of hungry people and poverty increases, can (morally, politically and in a realistic way) the research resources be devoted to other priorities than contributing to offer very short term solutions to this humanitarian disaster? Does a research system that consumes high financial resources have its place in such a context ? At least, in such a context how could it a research programme be feasible that should not be established and approved with the full participation of the poor? Who could tell the poor that they will have to wait 10 years or more to, perhaps, get a solution to their problem?

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on date palm and arid land farming systems.
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
Tel: 34.965421551
Fax: 34.965423706
E-mail: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

[Thanks to Michel Ferry for this contribution. One point which has indeed been an occasional source of misunderstanding in the conference is the distinction between biotechnology and GMOs. Some people have discussed biotechnology (and the potential role/focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda), but really meant GMOs. In this conference, and in all conferences of this Forum, we have emphasised that the term biotechnology covers a wide range of tools, of which genetic modification is just one. In the Background Document to this conference, we therefore wrote "Biotechnology is a collection of tools that can be applied to many areas of food and agriculture. The range of tools is very broad, as can be seen from the Background Documents to the first four conferences of this Forum, dedicated to the crop, forestry, animal and fishery sectors respectively. Some of the technologies may be applied to all these sectors as well as to agro-industry, such as the use of molecular DNA markers, gene manipulation and gene transfer. Others, instead, are more specific, such as vegetative reproduction (crops and forest trees), embryo transfer and freezing (livestock) or triploidisation and sex-reversal (fish)"...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 December 2002 16:38
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 91: Re: Synthesis of e-conference

This is Prof J Ralph Blanchfield.

I am surprised by Michel Ferry's (message 90, December 9) purporting to propose "a short synthetic analysis of this e-conference" and in giving his own interpretation of what was the intended subject of the conference. In fact, let us remind ourselves what was the true intended subject - to quote from the opening announcement - "We wish to announce that Conference 8 of the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture begins on Wednesday 13 November and runs for four weeks, finishing on Wednesday 11th December 2002. The title of the conference is "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?"."

Yes, biotechnology is wider than, but includes, transgenic GM. I am neither "root-and-branch" for transgenic GM, nor root-and-branch against it, Indeed a scientist should not be root-and-branch anything, except for the methodology of science. Provided that the issues of safety, environment, ethics and information are properly addressed, transgenic GM is a tool which has potential to achieve what cannot be achieved by other means, and should be one of the whole armoury of tools used to address food problems throughout the world, especially in developing countries.

There have been many valuable and thought-provoking contributions to this discussion which I have appreciated, even when I have not agreed with them. But I regret that, as is so often the case in discussions where biotechnology is involved, there were some contributions that appeared to be based on what Lord May, President of the UK Royal Society, recently referred to as "dogma, instinct or political ideology".

Nevertheless, overall this has been a most valuable conference, and I congratulate and thank FAO for organising it.

Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Chair, External Affairs, Institute of Food Science and Technology
Immediate Past Chair, IFT Committee for Global Interests
Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University
United States
IFST Web address www.ifst.org
Personal Web address www.jralphb.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 09:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 92: Priorities for biotech research in developing countries

This is from E.M. Muralidharan in India.

Since the conference is approaching the end, I want to give some emphasis to specific areas of research that I believe should receive some priority in developing countries. One of the advantages that many developing countries will always have is the availability of cheaper labour, including technically-skilled manpower. In areas like micropropagation, this can mean a lot in terms of improving the agriculture inputs and, when exported, a means of generating income in foreign exchange. Some problems need to be sorted out before this can happen.

Micropropagation is mostly a capital-intensive endeavor that cannot reach the remote and poorer regions of developed countries unless specific efforts are taken to make it so. Some efforts definitely are being taken to simplify tissue culture procedures and equipment so that costs in energy and material are minimized and micropropagation becomes cost-effective as well as within the reach of farmers without a university degree or intensive training. Research has, however, never been focused on this aspect sufficiently.

When robotics and further sophistication are being considered in developing countries as a means of reducing the labour costs, the developing nations may do well to enjoy the benefit of the advantage they already have. As a colleague of mine stated, a "demystification" of biotechnology is necessary, to put it in the hands of the common masses rather than leave it to the corporations alone. Some of the "lower biotechnologies" (vermiculture, biofertilizers etc.) can also benefit from the cheaper labour. I hope funds will be made available to encourage research in these `strategic' areas. These are, I think, part of what Dr. Udeni Edirisinghe (Message 88, December 9) refers to as "areas where there are no arguments and which all can agree to work on".

Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State,
India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 10:46
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 93: Re: Synthesis of e-conference

This is Alex Owusu-Biney, Research Scientist and National Project Coordinator for UNEP/GEF Project on "Development of Biosafety Frameworks".

I agree with Ralph Blanchfield (message 91, December 9). Biotechnology is not a panacea for all the problems that engulf us. As scientists we harness technology for its use and roles. For example, in West Africa we are grappling with Cassava Mosaic Virus issues, it seems all the prevailing technologies are not solving the problem. Could biotechnology, through transgenic cassava, be the answer? Such a tool if found to be helpful will be used.

Another area has been the use of bioleach plants and microorganisms to remove arsenates from our mining areas. In Ghana we have a bioleach plant which is using the power of microbes to trap arsenates. This has effectively helped to reclaim land which has been reforested again. At first no plant could grow near such areas because of the heavy metals. [Bioleaching is the recovery of metals from their ores, using the action of micro-organisms, rather than chemical or physical treatment. For example, Thiobacillus ferroxidans has been used to extract gold from refractory ores...Moderator].

Would it be possible to develop fast growing trees for afforestation programs and to address our furniture and building needs ? In our parts of the world, bamboo and rattan is being used by a lot of young people to develop furniture and other artifacts. This is a vital source of livelihood. The materials are being harvested from the wild. Could biotechnology through tissue culture and allied techniques be used to develop fast growing plants for this industry for its sustainable exploitation ?

There are many areas where we could adapt biotechnology but we should not lose sight of the importance of building capacity to handle issues of food safety, environmental impacts and ethical issues.

Alex Owusu-Biney
Biotechnology & Nuclear Agric. Research Institute
P. O. Box LG. 80
Legon, Accra
Ghana
bineya (at) idngh.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 10:56
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 94: A participatory research agenda

This is Miguel Altieri.

An estimated 1.4 billion people live and work in the vast, diverse and risk-prone rainfed areas in the developing world, where their farming operations will not benefit, in the foreseeable future, from mainstream biotechnological technologies. Their systems are usually located in heterogeneous environments too marginal for intensive agriculture and remote from markets and institutions. In order to benefit the poor more directly, a technological strategy must directly and simultaneously tackle the following objectives:
- Poverty alleviation
- Food security and self reliance
- Ecological management of productive resources
- Empowerment of rural communities
- Establishment of supportive policies

The strategy must be applicable under the highly heterogeneous and diverse conditions in which smallholders live, it must be environmentally sustainable and based on the use of local resources and indigenous knowledge. The emphasis should be on improving whole farming systems at the field or watershed level, rather than the yield of specific commodities. Technological generation should be a demand-driven process, meaning that research priorities should be based on the socio-economic needs and environmental circumstances of resource-poor farmers. Biotechnology does not meet any of the above requirements.

To be of benefit to the rural poor, agricultural research and development should operate on the basis of a "bottom-up" approach using, and building upon, the resources already available: local people, their knowledge and their autochthonous natural resources. It must also seriously take into consideration, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations and circumstances of smallholders. In this conference, I have emphasized that the voice of the poor and small farmers from the south must be heard, and so far we keep talking among scientists, policy makers, etc. IF the research agenda was defined jointly with farmers the following topics are likely to emerge:
- Improved understanding of marginal agroecosystems
- selection of local varieties that deliver stable yields in the face of environmental stress
- Technologies for water harvesting and drought management
- Small-scale, community-managed irrigation and water-conservation systems
- More diversified, less risky and productive farming systems
- Synergetic, diversified and less risky cropping and crop-livestock systems providing more stable yields
- Productive and sustainable agroforestry alternatives to shifting cultivation
- Sustainable income- and employment-generating exploitation of forest, fisheries and natural resources, as well as research on land reform, access to local markets, etc.

Implementation of such participatory research agenda should:
- Contribute to greater environmental preservation
- Enhance production and household food security
- Provide on- and off-farm employment
- Provision of local inputs and marketing opportunities
- Promotion of resource-conserving multifunctional technologies
- Participatory approaches for community involvement and empowerment
- Institutional partnerships
- Effective and supportive policies

Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
Professor of Agroecology
Division of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall-3112
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
United States
tel 510 6429802
fax 510 6427428
agroeco3 (at) nature.berkeley.edu
www.agroeco.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 11:04
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 95: "Work group" research

This is Dr Aisha, A. Badr, Egypt.

During my visits to small tropical fruit farmers, I found their interest in traditional medicine. As an example, the use of papaya fruits for curing stomach disease, green papaya for worms in kids and so on for many fruits. On the other hand, the production of bananas with vaccines for children leads me to the thought of helping small farmers by "work group" research which will help them to use such fruits safely. By "work groups" I mean: horticulturists, medical, pharmacology and biotechnology researchers working together. This may help small farmers to grow safe fruits for multi-uses. At the same time, this will meet their needs to use such fruits in tradional medicines safely to avoid harmful substances in green fruits. The vaccinated fruits are a great development in biotechnology research but what are the limitations of using it ? This also needs comprehensive research to convince scientists before others that they can give such fruits to their children.

I would like to salute the honesty of messages 73 (Jagdish Nazareth, December 3), 86 (Julie Newman, December 9), 87 (Jorge Mayer, December 9) and others in explaining mistakes of biotechnology research which I mentioned (safety for poor farmers) who trust us. In my country, we also, as mentioned in some messages, suffer from wasting scientists' time in searching for and buying chemicals and facilities and time lost for repairing instruments. Scientist must work only in research and let others manage.

Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 15:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 96: The best technology

I am Diogenes Infante, from the Biotechnology Center at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Caracas, Venezuela.

When there is a discussion about technology like computers or cellular phones, nobody is against the utilization of such technologies in the world, even in the least developed countries (LDCs). But, in the case of modern biology some people thinks technology have to prove its force first, this is the point in message 90 (December 9) by Michel Ferry. I really do not see why.

In my opinion, people taking decisions about how to allocate funds for research should consider always the best technology they can afford in each case, and of course that applies for a particular situation. Modern biology is more expensive but paid for. Modern biology allows for the development of new products that can be used for domestic consumption and for export to the international market. It allows for the development of plants that are able to grow in stress conditions, or in metal-contaminated soils, with less water, or resistant to pests. If those products are not on the market today it is because they are not needed in the developed world. They are needed in the LDCs, so it is our duty to develop then. In the same way, we need to develop a vaccine against malaria or dengue fever. These are our problems.

There are several ways to improve the use of the resources, regional centers and schools, exchange between laboratories, projects in collaboration between laboratories in different countries. In all the cases the target has to be the best.

To finish with one example: When the oil industry was nationalized in Venezuela during the 1970's a world class research institute was created: Intevep. I want to emphasize that it is a world class research institution. Today, 25 year later, the Venezuelan oil industry is able to manage all their technical process, as well as the utilization and commercialization of very heavy oil from the Orinoco basin, only present in Venezuela, including the development of the first new product from petroleum in almost 100 years (Orimulsion - a mixture of heavy oil and water with a surfactant to stabilize the emulsion and can be used to generate electricity), which started as a basic research project at the Universidad de Los Andes in Mérida, and finished as a new product which is commercialized. So research pays, even in a LDC.

Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
Centro de Biotecnología
Instituto de Estudios Avanzados-IDEA
Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
Caracas 10151-A, Venezuela

Carretera Nacional Hoyo de la Puerta
Sartenejas, Caracas 1080, Venezuela
58-(0416)-408-5765 celular
58-(0212)-906-4111 Ext. 6586
58-(0212)-962-1608 (Fax)

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 15:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 97: Emerging economies need emergent biotechnologies

This is J.R. Murti from Hyderabad, India.

Emerging economies (also known as developing countries) need to factorize 3 strategic perspectives in deciding "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas ......?"."

(1) Governance and Education:

Sovereign policies of emerging economies must focus on the fact that agriculture would be the setting in which biotechnologies (the tools) would be adopted. The research agendas could be "big science, few projects, megabucks" or "small science, many projects, matching grants". I personally favor the latter, since this strategy would remove the stranglehold of bureaucratic decision-making, trigger local-needs entrepreneurial projects, encourage the university faculty into devising guerilla projects matched to students future plans, increase the intellectual property rights (IPR) strike rates and knowledge base (including failures and dead-ends).

(2) Industry:

The Industry could lend credence to the whole strategic exercise by lobbying, establishing matching corpus grants, providing clear signals to the next generation of biotech knowledge workers as to where the new jobs and services are.

Biotechnology is essentially an evolving community of organizations and fast-moving alliances that create new value-chains out of biological products and processes. In doing so, biotech commercial alliances defy the Standard Industry Classification codes. [The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is a system of 4-digit codes that attempts to classify all business establishments by the types of products or services they make available. Establishments engaged in the same economic activity, whatever their size or type of ownership, are assigned the same SIC code. Most business directories and directory databases use the SIC codes to classify companies or businesses. Definition from http://libweb.uoregon.edu/govdocs/business/industry.html ...Moderator]. This means that standard university curricula must focus on minimum norms of knowledge. And the industry must sponsor the "elective" part of the curricula through corporate scholarships and competitive apprenticeships. This approach will satisfy the industry's efforts to match talent with business agendas, while forcing the universities to keep pace with the ever-expanding domain of biotech knowledge.

(3) Value Constellations:

Because of the nature of biotechnology, the new generation of biotech generalists and specialists should have a firm grounding in allied fields such as market intelligence, awareness/activism, policies/legalities, media/public outreach, coalition/network/informal research alliances that span traditional institutional mechanisms and boundaries, and public-legal advisory services.

These thoughts are primarily in the strategic domain (as Robert Grant put it: "Strategy is to win, pure & simple".

To give a dash of reality, let me share one of my experiences: I always ask all agri-biotech stakeholders, particularly the farmers: "Are you dependent on the plants or are they dependent on you?". Surprisingly, almost all pitch for the former part of the question! In reality, the use of hybrids, chemical intensification of agriculture, integrated pest management (IPM) etc. are all approaches that have made the human-nurtured and domesticated plants dependant on us. Why not research the biotechnology of weeds, transfer those very traits to our hybrids, and liberate them from human nurture? Weren't the cash crops (of today) weeds before they were domesticated? Isn't the Bt-technology, drought/salt/heat tolerance etc. the fore-runner similar technologies in the research/technology pipelines of knowledge institutions (public/private)??

Please remember that science and scientists must only keep creating choices and opportunities. It is for the society/market to pronounce judgement on them. Perhaps the "biotechnology of weeds" could now be re-viewed from the above 3 strategic perspectives??

Dr. J.R. Murti
Director, Agri-Biotechnology
Federation of Farmers Associations (A.P.)
#209, Vijaya Towers, Shantinagar
Hyderabad - 500028,
India
(O) +91-40-23319643 // +91-40-6665191
Email: jrmurti (at) hotpop.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 15:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 98: Biotechnology in developing countries

This is from Dr Gert Willemse. As a former academic and researcher, and more recently in the fields of policy and legislation, I have been involved with biotechnology in South Africa and elsewhere for some 30 years. During the last five years I was involved in the development of national legislation on GMOs, the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol and also served on the interdepartmental Steering Committee responsible for our national biotechnology strategy.

I have followed the conference discussion on the role and focus of biotechnology in developing countries with interest and was once again struck by the phenomenon that any latter-day discussion on biotechnology almost immediately takes the form of a pro- versus anti-GMO debate, almost totally ignoring the role and importance of the first and second generation biotechnologies.

Most developing countries are net importers of technologies and the need is evident for (a) local adaptation and extension of imported technologies and (b) developing and enhancing new technologies/competencies. The dependence of most developing countries on the natural environment and the agriculture sector performance, places much emphasis on biotechnology as national growth priority, with potential sectoral focus in the fields of agriculture, health care and industrial application.

Valuable lessons can be learnt from the development of biotechnology in developing countries particularly successful in incorporating this sector into the macroeconomic national environment, such as Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, and China. Of note is the fact that, although attention is given to gene transfer biotechnology, much of the strategic focus have been on especially second generation biotechnologies yielding bioremedial products with medical and agricultural application, such as vaccines and diagnostic kits. The benefits of developing expertise and national competency in these areas are not only evident within the context of dealing with country-specific problems, but also provides opportunity for international trade.

This brings me back to the areas of national/regional policy, strategy and legislation. Successful development of the biotechnology sector, although sometimes haphazard in focus, has always only been effective and sustainable in an enabling environment. Role and focus of research (including biotechnology research) in any country, would need to include an equitable allocation of resources devoted to research and development of the enabling environment.

Deputy Director, Biodiversity Management
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
315 Pretorius Street, Fedsure Forum Bldg
Pretoria 0001
South Africa
Tel +27 12 310 3836
Fax: +27 12 320 7026
E-Mail: gwillemse (at) ozone.pwv.gov.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 December 2002 17:18
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 99: Farm animal biotechnology research

I am Dr. Udo Herbert, a Senior Lecturer in Animal Physiology at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria.

I have carefully followed the comments by participants in this conference. It is not surprising that most of the discussion has centred on plant biotechnology. The reason is that over the years, stakeholders in poverty alleviation and food security have given the impression that the problem the world has is to increase calorie production and intake, paying less attention to animal protein production and intake in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and South-East Asia.

Nevertheless, inadequate production and intake of animal proteins in these regions necessitate efforts in farm animal biotechnology to enhance production and intake. Evidence abounds that in most rural African communities, livestock serve as stores of cash, suggesting that there is need to control the type of animals the farmers keep to ensure sustainable livestock production.

The thinking in certain quarters is that the rural poor are left out of the biotechnology discussions and that there is nothing in it for the small farmers. I have a different opinion. I wish to submit that the small farmers that accepted fertilizers, hybrid maize (which are essentially clones) would accept reproductive technologies in the livestock sector as long as they are carried along in the development of the technologies. Whether it is adaptation or outright development, the issue is that national governments in developing countries should begin to invest in farm animal biotechnology research. A situation where less than 1% of the GDP is applied to agricultural research in these countries does not mean well for the development of livestock research in the areas. In my country Nigeria, for example, less than 0.1% of the GDP is applied to agricultural research (crop and livestock together). Within this meagre provision, the livestock sector receives a much lower proportion than the crop sector. Not much can be achieved under this kind of funding situation.

The degree of seriousness applied to research is an important issue. Coordination between universities, research institutes and the private sector is another. Evidence suggests that certain donors and stakeholders in funding agricultural research prefer to fund different research-conducting bodies, implying low cooperation between the bodies. This leads to fragmented efforts in different areas. Pooling of resources to set-up well-equipped centres around the countries would yield better dividends than what is obtainable presently. This suggests that although certain research concerns may have regional or sub-regional applicability, it would be easier for scientists to benefit if they did not have to travel outside their countries or subregions to analyse materials.

With the diffusion of genes interfering with reproduction in plant species, occasioned by activities of commercial interests, it is not unlikely that the erosion of animal genetic resources in the developing world would soon start in a greater dimension than what we see today. I suggest that there is an urgent need to apply the techniques of germplasm collection, characterization and conservation using cryopreservation means to ensure the maintenance of the biodiversity in the regions.

To my mind the cooperation between scientists in the South and their colleagues in the North should continue as this has been yielding good fruits in encouraging more and more young scientists to seek ways of combining classical research tools with the modern ones developed in the North.

I feel strongly that better enlightenment is required to ensure that the needed support is given at all levels to the development of farm animal biotechnology in developing countries.

Dr. U. Herbert
Senior Lecturer in Animal Physiology
Department of Animal Science & Technology
Federal University of Technology
Owerri,
Nigeria
Email; udyherbert (at) yahoo.com
Phone: +234 803 327 3914

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 11:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 100: Re: A participatory research agenda

[In the last 2 days, we have had the first messages dealing exclusively with biotechnology research in the livestock sector (Udo Herbert, Message 99, December 10) and foresty sector (E.M. Muralidharan, Message 85, December 9), while Udeni Edirisinghe (Message 88, December 9) has considered fish based integration systems. Because we would dearly like to get more inputs regarding these sectors and/or these particular messages, and because there have been some excellent, highly-relevant messages posted over the last fews days about the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda in developing countries, we have decided to extend the conference to the 16 December. The last day for receiving messages for the conference is therefore MONDAY 16 DECEMBER. The last messages will then be posted on Tuesday morning December 17, Rome time, and the conference closed. Remember to ensure that any messages directly address the theme of the conference, see Moderator's message of December 2 and the second part of Message 37...Moderator].

This is John Nishio, California State University, Chico, United States.

Unlike so many of you who have carefully followed the wonderful comments in the present conference, I have only been able to follow in a cursory fashion. I appreciate the comments that are now beginning to be listed. I refer to the local problems being posted.

Thus, I agree whole-heartedly with most of what Miguel Altieri (message 94, December 10) has recently posted. The operators of small rural farms in developing countries, but also developed countries, can provide local inputs to the "scientists" and policymakers who set the agendas. The problems must be well stated, or else the "solutions" may be woefully inadequate. Designing and producing the "ideal" crop(s) can only be good. It ought to be our goal to design and test the most efficient (I mean that thermodynamically) farming systems possible. Such a model system could be reverse engineered, if need be, for regions with fewer resources; or other models could be developed to promote transfer of the technology. "Large" and "small" farms should be considered. My limited knowledge of developing countries is that they also have "large" farms, and they ought to be operated with ecologically sound principles, as well. Applying biotechnology to all aspects of agriculture should be considered, if it might provide solutions to the problems that are recognized as "important".

We should not limit our approaches. We should embrace all that biotech has to offer (including GMOs) and look for the best solutions that provide long-term global productivity and stability. If one wishes to conserve water, then plants with high water-use efficiency ought to be utilized. They could be used for dryland or irrigation farming. In the United States (I don't have data for other countries), a small percentage of the water used for agriculture represents the amount of water presently used domestically. Therefore, conserving only a small percentage of water makes available double that which is presently used domestically in the United States. Efficient irrigation systems (if available) applied to the water-efficient crops conserve even more water. Improving the crops via "biotech" to yield heat (cold) tolerant, water efficient, pest resistant, allelopathic, high nutrient uptake efficient, and high nutrient use efficient plants can only help. [Allelopathy is the secretion of chemicals, such as phenolic and terpenoid compounds, by a plant's roots, which inhibit the growth or reproduction of competitor plants...Moderator]. Transferring and sharing the systems in an economically feasible fashion requires political will. While much of what Miguel Altieri and I have referred to may be construed as platitudes or simplistic, it is important that the notion as a whole be seriously considered.

John N. Nishio
Photosynthesis and Plant Productivity Research Cente
College of Natural Science
California State Universit
Chico, CA 95973055
United States
JNishio (at) csuchico.edu
Phone: 1.530.898.868

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 11:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 101: Re: Emerging economies need emergent biotechnologies

This is from Hong, Lay Thong in Malaysia. I am a layman as far as biotechnology is concerned, but have great interest in biotechnology for development. There are many ways in which biotechnology could be used effectively in developing countries. I like Dr. J. Murthi's message (no. 97, December 10) which has, thus far, provided the best scenario and comments on "role and focus of biotechnology in agricultural research.......in developing countries". In addition I would like to add that:

It is difficult to prescribe a role and focus of biotechnology to encompass most of the developing countries. Each of the countries has to prioritise and evaluate areas of biotechnology that could be effectively and economically employed for its (agricultural) development. For example, in the case of Malaysia the government has earmarked that "Biotechnology" will be the next technology that would continue to propel the country's development after the successful implementation of the IT (information technology) policy. A research institute is researching on the rubber tree to produce insulin in the latex, and hopefully this process, if it succeeds, will be more cost-effective for treatment of diabetics. To focus the country's limited resources on biotechnology applications it has formed a National Biotechnology Secretariat to prioritise and coordinate suitable biotechnological applications for development of industries or processes, especially those using agricultural resources. This application of biotechnology encompasses not only agricultural biotechnology, but industrial processes of biotechnology that use agricultural and animal resources.

Hence, whether a country wants to use molecular marker technology or transgenic research in order to produce/select a better breed of animals and/or crops or to focus on industrial biotechnology to develop its agriculture-based industry, has to be strategically planned and GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED, plus with the ACTIVE participation of the private sector. There could be no generalisations for all. Dr. J. Murthi has elicited some of the considerations and it is up to national governments of developing countries to prioritise, taking into account its capabilities, human resources, economy, ability to develop strategic alliance with developed economies and fund generation ability.

Hong, Lay Thong
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)
Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania
Serdang,
Malaysia
e-mail: l.hong (at) cgiar.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 12:49
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 102: Pool regional resources and use independent research

This is Glenn Ashton, independent commentator and observer on genetic engineering (GE) and biotechnology, writing from Cape Town, South Africa.

Very little research has been undertaken into the needs of developing farmers that may be addressed using any of the many modalities of biotechnology. In one cited example of such research, the independent Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ) investigated problems amongst smallholder farmers that could be addressed by the use of biotechnology. Interestingly, the research identified no problems that could be mitigated by the use of GE crops.

Just as the needs of Zimbabwe have been reviewed, so too should similar research be undertaken to assess small farmer needs around the world. I would suggest that similar findings to BTZ would be common. Most, if not all, GE crops are not aimed at solving small farmers needs but are instead directed toward intensive, industrial farming. Monsanto Southern Africa representatives have admitted as much. The main problem is that small farmers do not offer profitable markets to the agro-chemical approaches of the green revolution or the use of transgenic crops. Such approaches failed in Africa before and again threaten food security, rather than offer promise. This has been emphasised by many participants of this conference.

It would seem useful to move beyond national research and toward regional research based on areas of climatological similarity. Expertise could then be pooled and the influence of trans-national corporation (TNC) research and profit-driven criteria for solutions could be mitigated.

In South Africa we have seen a skewing of research priorities driven by public/private partnerships by the funding of research by TNCs. Both our Agricultural Research Centre and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research have based their main programmes on commercial rather than small farmers needs. This is a reality of structural adjustment programmes driven by the World Bank and other Bretton Woods institutions. So it is imperative to firstly develop programmes that are suited to respond to small farmers needs and these are often not responsive to profit-driven solutions. And then address these needs in programmes that are designed to meaningfully address the root causes of privations of small farmers.

Such interventions may include tissue culture, soil or root inoculation, Marker Assisted Breeding (MAB) and other non-genetically invasive responses offer far more promise and far less downside. If we wish to address the needs of small farmers we have to look at solutions that create independence from market inputs, not dependence on bought inputs.

The limited resources available for agricultural research should therefore be regionally pooled and examine the simplest, most practical and preferably previously proven and tested technologies used in similar climatological, infrastructurally-deficient regions. In most cases, solutions would seek to simultaneously deal with numerous problems and not focus on silver bullet solutions, such as GE technologies, that are more likely to create further problems. GE crops should be confined to developed nations capable of dealing with negative impacts by established biosafety systems.

These resources, when identified, should focus on as many aspects of food security as possible; holistic systems such as permaculture, the Kenyan push/pull systems and Central American chinimapas are each ways of solving many problems by integrated systems. It is clear, given the market distortion of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) subsidy systems that food security needs must be the primary aim of such interventions - with cash crops, especially those affected by OECD subsidies, being afforded less priority. We cannot honestly expect the market to solve problems that it has created, directly or indirectly.

I also suggest a visit to www.grain.org to peruse their excellent analyses of these issues.

Glenn Ashton,
South Africa,
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 14:03
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 103: Enabling environments

I am Gert Willemse from the Department of Environmental Affairs in South Africa, member of the national GMO Council and member of the national Biotechnology Strategy Steering Committee. Further to my previous message (no. 98, December 10) on the importance of enabling mechanisms, I would like to submit the following: [In his previous message, he concluded that "Role and focus of research (including biotechnology research) in any country, would need to include an equitable allocation of resources devoted to research and development of the enabling environment"...Moderator]

Enabling environments:

The institutional hierarchy, and the harmonization and coordination of relationships, functions and powers of different national authorities involved in implementation and regulatory oversight of biotechnology development and application are crucial to the realization of national priorities. An additional and equally important factor is the internal division of authority and responsibilities at the sub-national level as determined by the domestic political and administrative structure of a country.

Given the complex set of common and unique features and interests characteristic of any given situation, there clearly exists a need to explore the sort of incremental changes within a) policy, b) institutional and c) regulatory frameworks that could help to provide the enabling environment for development and implementation tools to be refined and applied. It needs to be recognized that there are many areas where conventional approaches or solutions have simply not been effective and where there is a real need to consider alternatives, not only to create the requisite enabling environment and the building of capacity but also to make more effective and efficient use of existing resource capacity.

a) Policy frameworks:
Policy development and analyses are crucial first steps, in need of research and development funding, in establishing a suitable enabling environment for implementation. Initiating these processes, and the ultimate direction taken by them, are inextricably linked to the existing political climate. In more open societies decision-making tends to become decentralised thus impacting positively on the environment, whereas countries with political instability and civil strife suffer high environmental and developmental costs. Across the globe, democratic regimes that are committed to the protection of environmental and human rights, and development based on market-oriented economies are on the increase. This trend is also recognised and highlighted as a cornerstone of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), creating national and regional political climates conducive to development and harmonisation of integrated sectoral and national policy instruments appropriately aligned to achieve commonly shared goals.

Integrated and inter-sectorally aligned policy frameworks need to be translated into strategies and actions to achieve the stated policy goals. One of the primary outcomes of new policy is usually an identified objective to establish suitable regulatory instruments and the necessary administrative and institutional systems responsible for effective and efficient implementation of the policy and regulatory systems.

b) Administrative and institutional systems:
The biotechnology sector in individual countries and internationally faces a variety of development options requiring reconsideration of the structure and function of the natural resource base and the potential impacts of utilisation regimes. In this context, the optimal institutional arrangements and linkages to remove or minimise administrative constraints must also be addressed. Unquestionably, the ultimate goal has to be the creation of, and capitalising on, optimal development opportunities whilst ensuring adequate conservation and sustainability of the natural resource base.

In order to achieve optimal sustainability of the resource base and capitalise on expanding trade opportunities, governments are having to consider modifying their existing administrative and institutional systems, most of them sectorally-based and not always comparable between countries or even within regions. Sectoral division of responsibility for implementation of environmental and sustainable development programmes is often a hindrance to effective, integrated implementation of such programmes at local, national and regional levels. It is of vital importance that implementation initiatives and efforts are supported by strong, flexible institutional arrangements that are able to respond to political change and evolving scientific understanding.

Convergence or harmonisation within and between countries is becoming an increasingly important factor to achieve effective implementation of national or regional priorities. The complexities of regulatory frameworks necessitate high investment and recurrent costs. The challenge is therefore to rationalise and harmonise, to distribute responsibilities and authority between various institutions and to establish cooperative inter-institutional communication and coordination in order to ensure that functions are performed effectively and efficiently. Nevertheless, there are very definite limits to rationalisation and harmonisation, beyond which the benefits gained tend to decline and the results become counterproductive to the objectives of increased effectiveness and efficiency.

c) Regulatory frameworks:
In many instances, domestic and regional decisionmaking systems and regulatory control have tended to separate economic, trade and investment issues from environmental factors. Trade and investment policy and law have generally not taken environmental considerations into account. Conversely, environmental policies and legislative frameworks tend to embody strict protectionist objectives rather than coupling conservation with sustainable use. The resultant disparity between policy and legislation of the environmental sector and that of trade and development invariably leads to potential and real conflict in the process of national decision-making where, more often than not, the environment and natural resource capital suffer the detriment.

Clearly, there is not only a need for comprehensive and effective legal instruments to give effect to strategic policy objectives, but an equal need for cross-sectoral harmonization and alignment of legislative instruments. This alignment and harmonization should ideally be at both national and regional levels, to ensure and facilitate effective implementation of established policy objectives. Achieving such complex but intersectorally empowering legal frameworks completes the triad of enabling systems essential for an optimal administrative environment. At the same time, the dual character of an integrated legal framework, as enabling instrument and implementation tool, can be fully exploited, enhancing and facilitating the implementation of policy objectives.

Dr. Gert Willemse
Deputy Director, Biodiversity Management
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
315 Pretorius Street, Fedsure Forum Bldg
Pretoria 0001
South Africa
Tel +27 12 310 3836
Fax: +27 12 320 7026
E-Mail: gwillemse (at) ozone.pwv.gov.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 15:44
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 104: Fish farming and biotechnology in developing countries

This is Prof. Bill Muir again.

In my last posting (message 72, December 3), I discussed the contributions of classical breeding to the green revolution in developing countries. In a recent article by The Wall Street Journal entitled "Issue Sets Affluent Donor Countries Against Man Who Sowed Green in Asia" by S. Kilerman and R. Thurow (December 3, 2002 - can be seen at AgBioView: December 5, 2002), they discuss the success of implementing classical breeding technology by Norman E. Borlaug, who was the father of the green revolution and in 1970 won the Nobel Peace Prize for having helped stave off mass starvation in India and Pakistan by introducing high-yielding wheat plants to farmers there. More importantly, they point out that part of the solution in India was due to changing policy to adopting farmer-friendly policies and export markets. Now Dr. Borlaug has changed his focus to helping Africa. He notes that again, the greater problem is with policy. His experience is similar to a colleague of mine who tried to introduce tilapia farming as a new commodity for family income in Africa. Tilapia are particularly well suited to farming because they are very efficient in converting all types of plant feed into high quality meat. They also survive well in poor quality warm water, grow to sexual maturity in 4-6 months, and are prolific breeders. Classic breeding has improved growth to even higher rates. Seems like the perfect solution for Africa. When these were introduced into villages, several farmers quickly adopted the "new technology", dug shallow ponds, and soon had a cash crop. Unfortunately there was no one to purchase the fish, or no way to transport to markets, so they ended up selling them dirt cheap, eating a few, and finally giving up. It was just another way to make a subsistence living. The point is, where would biotechnology or any technology help if the basics of infrastructure and agriculture policy are missing? There is no silver bullet such as biotechnology that is going to stop poverty - that requires a consistent and focused political structure to provide the infrastructure necessary to succeed. Once such infrastructure and policy are in place and the region is up to basic production and transportation levels, export markets need to open to allow sales of goods. Being a biologist, it pains me to say that the near term solution is not in the biology (or biotechnology), but in the economics and politics of the region.

William M. Muir, Ph.D.
Professor Genetics
1151 Lilly Hall
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47906
United States
bmuir (at) purdue.edu
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~bmuir/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 16:45
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 105: Human capacity and stakeholder participation in biotechnology research

I am Zephaniah Dhlamini, working for FAO as an associate professional officer (biotechnology) in Rome. Prior to joining FAO, I worked for 6 years as a plant biotechnology researcher and lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe.

I would like to reiterate the point raised by many contributors that it is not practical for us to come up with a list of biotechnologies suitable for developing countries. Each country has its unique set of problems and needs. It is important for any developing country to have the right human resource base to identify these problems and to have the knowledge and wisdom to carefully select and utilise the most appropriate technologies available in addressing the needs of the poor rural farmer as well as the commercial farmer.

Capacity building and the ability to retain trained personnel is central to the adoption and utilisation of biotechnology in developing countries. My home country Zimbabwe, has been lucky in that it has had close to 70 MSc and PhD biotechnologists trained since 1991. Most of the training funds came from the DGIS (the Directorate General for International Cooperation in the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs) of the Netherlands and SIDA/SAREC (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (capacity building and research)). Unfortunately, due to the lack of adequate research funds and relevant job opportunties within the country most of these graduates have since left the local lab bench and sought better-paid jobs in developed countries and, worse still, some have even joined the local financial services sector where they get paid up to four times more than they would make working as biotechnologists. Thus, there is need for our countries to come up with incentives to attract and retain both local and foreign scientists who will be able to objectively identify and address the country biotechnology research needs.

Any country that intends to benefit from biotechnology should come up with a solid research and development policy framework to encourage and support the utilisation of the many tools offered by biotechnology in their agricultural research and development activities. Furthermore, there is need for an increase in public sector participation in the financing of applied biotechnology activities. The over-dependency on the donor community and the private sector should be discouraged. Different donors have different objectives and priorities and, in most cases, these are not in line with the critical needs of the recipient countries. In most cases, these projects are not coordinated - they always lack continuity and impact.

I would also like to agree with Chittranjan Bhatia (message 53, November 27) and Glenn Ashton (message 102, December 11) on the need to promote the "bottom up approach" in prioritising our biotech research agendas. I used to be one of those scientists opposed to the adoption of this approach, until I got involved in the Dutch-funded biotechnology projects in Zimbabwe (the Biotechnology Trust of Zimbabwe (BTZ), referred to by Glenn Ashton) that Bhatia mentioned. In this approach, one gets to know what the real needs are and, if well trained, one can objectively opt for the best technology intervention path. For example, during one of these consultative exercises where we were trying to do a needs assessment for a sorghum molecular biology project, the Zimbabwean sorghum farmers clearly stated their need for a white seeded, early maturing variety that is drought tolerant, resistant to bird attack and fungal diseases as well as agronomic management strategies to deal with these problems. The farmers were not concerned about the method of intervention the scientist is going to use, nor do they want to see the fancy equipment and the glossy gel pictures we produce in the lab. All they need is a solution to their problems, be it GMO or not. Now, when operating in environments where governments are silent in terms of policy and funding and you have donors running the show, you cannot get anywhere as you will spend all the time keeping the donors happy, despite the knowledge of the actual needs on the ground.

Lastly, I think it is not fair for De Lange (message 75, December 3) to label the Dutch biotechnology programme, referred to by Bhatia, as being used as a conduit for GMOs in these countries, at least I never saw the possibility of that happening in the Zimbabwean program. That programme has since immensely contributed towards human and infrastructure capacity building and public awareness issues associated with biotechnology in the country. Furthermore, following detailed needs assessments they have successfully implemented mushroom cultivation and increased soybean production and yields in the rural areas by promoting the use of rhizobium inoculants. They also have another promising project that seeks to produce a drought tolerant and insect resistant maize variety. In this project, classical breeding methods are being aided by marker-assisted selection. Some trials are being conducted on the rural farmer's fields and, at that level, their contribution is great. [This subject thread is now closed...Moderator].

Zephaniah Dhlamini Associate Professional Officer (Biotechnology)
Research and Technology Development Service (SDRR)
Food and Agriculture Organisation of The United Nations
Viale Terme di Caracalla
00100, Rome
Italy
Telephone: 0039 06 5705 4426
Fax: 0039 06 5705 5731
Zephaniah.Dhlamini (at) fao.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 17:02
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 106: Genetic modification and public good research

This is Denis Murphy from the UK (see previous message #48).

Firstly, many thanks to the organisers of this conference for allowing us this opportunity to learn from the valuable experiences of so many colleagues, especially in developing countries. The discussions have overwhelmingly been positive and constructive both in substance and tone and I have learned a lot from people with whom I would rarely have the chance to communicate. I hope we can expand this kind of dialogue in the future - maybe via a more permanent forum?

Two days ago, I spoke in one of the first of a series of public debates that are being held as part of the UK government consultation on the future commercialisation of GM crops. Much of our public remains sceptical about these crops. It is evident that the current first generation of input trait modified GM crops (soy, maize, canola & cotton) generally have some modest profitability for growers and lower pesticide requirements (in the case of Bt), but it is also clear that they have relatively small yield advantages and low consumer appeal. We still face a formidable challenge to persuade UK consumers of the need for and the benefits (to them) of GM crops.

The next generation of output trait crops with better consumer appeal is realistically 5-10 years away from full commercialisation. In the meantime, we are still encumbered with a set of relatively prototypical technologies for gene transfer that relies on random gene insertion and the use of non-optimal accessories like viral promoters and antibiotic resistance markers.

However, the technology is advancing rapidly. The current prototype GM plants are continually being refined by the development of methods for site-specific gene insertion, plastid transformation (to exclude gene escape via pollen) and the excision of unwanted marker genes and other DNA regions. Moreover, in the UK we are hoping to facilitate the emergence of public-domain facilities for crop transformation in order to encourage the development of a broader range of crop improvements than is possible in narrowly focused commercial organisations.

What is the message from this for developing countries and this conference in particular? I think it might be as follows:

1. GM is an infant technology with great future potential (it is a little like semiconductor and computer R&D 30 years ago, where an initial rather clunky, expensive and not very useful set of prototypes were eventually improved & developed to create the flourishing new industry that we see today).

2. The actual technology is getting cheaper and simpler all the time, but:

3. Many of the current applications will be superseded in the next 5-10 years.

4. It may be better to wait a few years rather than investing in semi-obsolescent technology.

5. However, it is important to train and sustain a cadre of good biotech-literate scientists so that, in future, informed decisions on the allocation of scarce R&D resources can be made. Glenn Ashton hit the nail on the head (message 102, December 11) when he suggested the establishment of regional centres for R&D into appropriate GM technology in developing countries. In many respects we already do this in the European Union and the United States via virtual centres and pooled resources like the Arabidopsis Resource Centres, DNA banks, mutant libraries and so on. [Glenn's Ashton's suggestion was broader: He wrote "The limited resources available for agricultural research should therefore be regionally pooled and examine the simplest, most practical and preferably previously proven and tested technologies used in similar climatological, infrastructurally-deficient regions. In most cases, solutions would seek to simultaneously deal with numerous problems and not focus on silver bullet solutions, such as GE technologies, that are more likely to create further problems."...Moderator].

6. International organisations like FAO should support such international regional centres for public good science. The centres should also be encouraged to collaborate with publicly funded centres in developed countries. The objective should be to re-create a strong publicly funded, non-commercial research effort into crop improvement that is focused on real human needs rather than mere income generation.

7. We all should also endeavour to raise the awareness of the general population by incorporating biotech issues into school & college curricula. In parallel, the scientists should be enabled to interact more effectively with other stakeholder groups, including farmers, food manufacturers/retailers, social scientists, politicians, environmentalists etc.

Professor Denis J Murphy
Biotechnology Unit
School of Applied Sciences
University of Glamorgan
Treforest
Cardiff CF37 1DL
United Kingdom
email: dmurphy2 (at) glam.ac.uk
phone: +44 1443 483 747
fax: +44 1443 483 554
mobile/cellphone 07714 105 381

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 December 2002 17:07
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 107: Re: Fish farming and biotechnology in developing countries

I am Dr. Diogenes Infante, from IDEA in Caracas, Venezuela.

I agree with the comments from Bill Muir (message 104, December 11) about the way to solve poverty. In my first message (nr. 17, November 20), I stated that the problem with poverty is not technological, it is social. I only want to point out that the problem (social or political) has to be addressed trough education. If a country wants to fight poverty it has to create school for the poorest. Biotechnology has to be the way to create more wealth in the society: food, commodities to export, and this wealth will benefit the lower-income people, making available to them good schools. Under-development is a mentality.

Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
Centro de Biotecnología
Instituto de Estudios Avanzados-IDEA
Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
Caracas 10151-A, Venezuela
Carretera Nacional Hoyo de la Puerta
Sartenejas, Caracas 1080, Venezuela
58-(0416)-408-5765 celular
58-(0212)-906-4111 Ext. 6586
58-(0212)-962-1608 (Fax)
dinfante (at) idea.org.ve

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 12 December 2002 09:48
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 108: The status of biotech research in agriculture

This is from Dr. Ahmed L. Abdel-Mawgood, Associate Prof., Agronomy Dept., Minia Univ., Egypt. This is a summary of my views as a molecular biologist with a PhD from the USA and postdoctoral experiences both in industry and academia. After, I have returned to Egypt and as a visiting scientist to Saudi Arabia, I can summarize my views on biotechnology research in more than one developing country as following:

1. No national strategy, at least for Egypt, of the priority of the problems that should be solved using molecular biology techniques.
2. Most of the molecular biology is a show rather than a real science aimed to solve a national problem.
3. Most of the work done in the developing world is incomplete. For example, I was working in a project of importance to the Egyptian agriculture, and once the funds from the USA stopped, the whole project could not be completed because I could not find the funds to finish the project.
4. In most of the molecular biology institutes in developing countries, qualified molecular biologists cannot find their way into them. Even worse, the directors of these institutes are selected based on their closeness to the government rather than their efficiency or vision in solving problems.
5. Dispersed efforts: One can find more than one lab in the same government sector, with the same facilities and maybe the same research agenda. As a result, most of the funds is going to establishing the lab and no, or very limited, funds for running costs. In addition, more than one lab is conducting the same research work.

Finally, from my own experience, the most successful work is that involving collaborative research projects with scientists from the developed world. So I am suggesting that developing countries set up agendas for their priorities and find an expertise from the developed world in that area of research to benefit from his/her experience, to speed up the research and hasten benefit from the technology.

Dr. Ahmed L. Abdel-Mawgood
Associate Prof.
Minia Univ., Minia Egypt
mawgood9 (at) yahoo.com

Current Position:
Visiting Associate Prof.
King Saud Univ.
Dept Of Plant Production
Faculty of Ag
Rhyadh, KSA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 12 December 2002 12:15
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 109: "Scientifically illiterate, politically clueless"

This is Dr. J.R. Murti, in continuation of my thoughts on the "scope & nature of biotech research agendas in developing economies...."

This is in response to a few e-queries I got directly as to my choice of the 3-pronged strategy (i.e. Governance & Education, Industry and Value Constellations) I advocated in message 97, December 10.

Professor Muir (message 104, December 11) is absolutely right "Being a biologist, it pains me to say that the near term solution is not in the biology (or biotechnology), but in the economics and politics of the region."

Here's how and why: Forget biotech or developing countries, for the moment. How do we sponsor meaningful research agendas of the politically clueless when the funding allocations are done by scientifically illiterate generalists? I've personally faced the wrath of full professors in science who refuse to accept that washing soap and visiting cards are also biotech products.

Mr. Gregory E. van der Vink wrote (ref. #1) one of the most insightful of science policy articles I've ever come across. I've taken the liberty to use the same headline for my 2nd contribution to this most interesting conference.

In another essay (ref. #2), Norman Augustine narrates this story: National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration (NASA) administrator Dan Goldin cites a question he received while defending funding for the space agency: "Why are we building meteorological satellites when we have the Weather Channel?". Or take this one "I'll not let any DNA on my dinner plate or my neighborhood"!

And there's more: "As scientists and engineers, our achievements are increasingly taken for granted and our occasional failures subject to intense public criticism. A portion of the problem is due to the fact that there is still widespread scientific illiteracy even among those who hold high-level decision-making positions. For example, only 20 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have a science or engineering background (which is, by the way, an increase from the recent past). There are only two in the Senate and none in the Cabinet. Of the 50 governors, 9 have a science or engineering degree. Keep in mind that these are the people who must make the decisions regarding automobile pollution standards, approval of a space program, funding of the superconducting supercollider, the human genome project, and developments in bioengineering such as the possibility of human cloning."

And these brutally frank confessions come from one of the most liberated of societies (after all, "science cannot lead in a society that fails". One final quote from Gregory's article: "Bright students do not see science as a way to reach positions of leadership, and science suffers because those in leadership positions have little experience in science. Our long-term future depends on citizens understanding and appreciating the role of science in our society. No panel report, no unambiguous example, and no well-connected lobbyist can make these arguments for us. In the next generation, we will not only need scientists who are experts in sub-specialties, but also those with a broad understanding of science and a basic literacy in economics, international affairs, and policy making. In the end, our greatest threat may not be the scientific illiteracy of the public, but the political illiteracy of scientists."

Which brings me to the theme of this conference and the strategies offered in my earlier message. Biotechnology is basically commercializing biological processes. If there's money to be made, then encourage/enact policies that help entrepreneurship. After all, intellectual property rights only ensure that demand is always lesser than supply, even though it's for a defined period where more money than any risk-free returns can be made. Pure economics will ensure the selection of projects that will yield the same benefits with lesser resources, or yield more with the same resources. And market dynamics/intelligence will always sniff them out. This is where "value constellations" help in appropriating the best talent from rigid institutional boundaries (and jealousies) from fossilized government/universities (in developing countries) and business-driven research agendas of the industry. I'm personally involved in creating such hybrid/coalitional organizational forms or value constellations.

Finally, in case you wish to read the full text of the 2 essays, I'd be happy to e-mail them. References:
1)SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE vs. POLITICALLY CLUELESS. Gregory E. van der Vink. SCIENCE 276, 21 MAY 1992; Editorial
2) ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: What We Don't Know Does Hurt Us. How Scientific Illiteracy Hobbles Society. Norman Augustine; Volume 279, Number 5357 Issue of 13 Mar 1998, pp. 1640-1641

Dr. J. R. MURTI
Director, Agri-Biotechnology
Federation of Farmers Associations (A.P.)
#209, Vijaya Towers, Shantinagar
Hyderabad - 500028, INDIA
(O) +91-40-23319643 // +91-40-6665191
Email: jrmurti (at) hotpop.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 12 December 2002 12:38
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 110: Re: Fish farming and biotechnology in developing countries

This is from Paul Heisey, USDA Economic Research Service (formerly with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)):

I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Muir (message 104, December 11) that policy variables are extremely important, and infrastructure is necessary for the success of many technologies, even those most suitable to small farmers. But these policy questions are not simple, either. See the recent article by Amy Waldman in the New York Times (December 2, "India's poor starve as wheat rots") about India, which is a real Green Revolution success story.

Paul Heisey
Economic Research Service, USDA
USDA Economic Research Service, 1800 M St., NW
Washington D.C. 20036-5831
U.S.A.
Tel. +1-202 694-5526
Fax: +1-202 694-5774
EMail: pheisey (at) ers.usda.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 12 December 2002 14:48
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 111: Democratize biotechnology processes

My name is Aaron deGrassi. I am currently a graduate student at the Institute of Development Studies (UK).

I am writing because after reading the Moderator's comments, it seems that the aim of this conference is rather misguided. Choices about biotechnology should be decided in a democratic, bottom-up manner--through organizations that are representative and accountable to poor people--not through global email conferences. It is thus preposterous to try to answer the sorts of initial questions this conference has focused on:
1. what proportion of ag research resources should go to biotech?
2. what are priorities, levels, methods for research?
3. what should collaboration be with IARCs, universities, private sector?

These are not *our* questions to decide. As Miguel Altieri noted (message 42, November 25), poor farmers' voice is "again absent from this fora, as it is from most international meetings setting the agenda for the poor."

At the country level, it is not surprising that the African countries that are most advanced in biotech are some of the most corrupt and unequal societies in the world.

The regional African bodies that Marcel Nwalozie (Message 47, November 25) mentioned, while a step forward, are not representative of, nor accountable to, poor people--they are largely constituted by hand-picked delegates from undemocratic governments. In this light, the claim that biotechnology planning in these fora was a "long consensus-seeking exercise" is rather superficial.

We ought to be discussing how to build basic grass roots democracy and how to get rid of the well-intentioned but ultimately destructive trusteeship that plagues the development profession.

Aaron deGrassi
House 21, Brighthelm
University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9SA
United Kingdom
44-07787-3414-80
ald21 (at) sussex.ac.uk

[Note, the aim of this conference is not to provide answers to these difficult questions about the role and focus of biotechnology in the research agenda of developing countries. Instead, as specified in the Background Document, "By dedicating an entire conference to this theme we hope to encourage a useful and positive dialogue that will provide food for thought and be of assistance to policy makers in developing countries"...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 13 December 2002 10:45
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 112: Re: Democratize biotechnology processes

This is E.M. Muralidharan from India again.

At a risk of digressing from the main issue, I want to comment on one of the recent messages. I cannot but disagree with Aaron deGrassi's (Message 111, December 12) statement about the aim of this conference being misguided.

It is through such discussions that we increase the awareness among ourselves of the change required in agenda and priorities in different contexts. We may not be a large enough group (even if we consider several participants who never contributed to the messages) but at least some of the contributors here are policy makers and farmers representatives and I would like to think that, in some small way, the diversity of opinion that came up in this conference has influenced their viewpoint. One of the aims of the conference viz. ".........we hope to encourage a useful and positive dialogue that will provide food for thought and be of assistance to policy makers in developing countries" has been achieved. Insufficient dialogue perhaps, but then what is required is more of such ventures with wider participation. If the `poor farmers' voice was not heard here then we should take more effort to see that it does in future. I hope the moderator and FAO will make this possible in future by sending invitations to a wider representation of the stakeholders in future conferences and also ensure that the proceedings of this conference reaches all quarters.

Another reason I am all for such e-conferences. I would have had to spend a fortune (of tax payer's money!) and lot of time and effort to have made a trip to Rome to attend a regular conference where, if I was lucky I would have been permitted to present a paper and answer a few questions during discussion time. Nothing compared to the freedom of time, space and interaction offered by this e-conference. My only regret is that this is such a brief conference not well known to all concerned. But this is the best bet yet.

Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State,
India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org

[Thanks to Dr. Muralidharan for this message. I can add that a total of 345 people have joined the conference and they receive each of the e-mails posted in the conference. 60 of them have posted messages so far, while the remaining 285 (i.e 83%) have hopefully read them and found the exchange of views and experiences useful and interesting. All of your messages are put on the web and will remain on that site for anyone to look at in the future.

Secondly, we try and ensure that the proceedings of these conferences reach all quarters. After each conference, a Summary Document is prepared and sent to all Forum Members. It is also put on the FAO Biotechnology website and announced in FAO-BiotechNews. This is the 8th conference we have hosted since the Forum was launched in March 2000. Earlier this year, FAO Research and Technology Paper 8, entitled "Agricultural Biotechnology for Developing Countries - Results of an Electronic Forum", was published. This presents a report of the first six e-mail conferences and is freely available at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2729E/Y2729E00.HTM. It is also in the process of being translated into Spanish and we are hoping it will be translated into Chinese. Again, you, as Forum Members, can assist in letting other people know that these conference outputs are available...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 13 December 2002 13:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 113: Modern biotechnology research in Turkey

This is from Dr. Süleyman Karahan from Turkey.

The impact of modern biotechnology on human life and economic progress has given a major impetus to accelerate research, development and application in this field in relevant socio-economic sectors. The application of modern biotechnology research in developing countries has, to a large extent, occurred in the agricultural sector. It is the case for Turkey as well.

Modern biotechnology uses advanced plant breeding techniques to introduce beneficial traits to the crops. It also allows the breeders to select genes that produce beneficial traits and move them from one plant to another. The process is far more precise and selective. Modern biotechnology also removes technical obstacles to moving genetic traits between plants and other organisms. This opens up a world of genetic traits to benefit agricultural production.

Turkey is an agriculture-dependent country. The agricultural production should be increased non-stop. For this purpose, all possible means must be used. On the other hand, Turkey has a great richness of genetic resources. To use this richness for the benefit of our country it is necessary to explore it. One of the most powerful technologies to explore that richness is modern biotechnology. It is clear that modern biotechnology will have a great impact on human life in the next century. In the country, current institutional capacity is not strong enough to use all possible tools that modern biotechnology provides. If the country stays dependent on outside sources, it is necessary to continue importing technology or its end products. The production always will be more expensive and less benefit will be made than deserved. As a result of that, a great chance will be lost to compete in international area.

Considering the above explanations, and recognizing the importance of modern biotechnology for scientific and technological development and its impact on agriculture, it is decided to accelerate a project on modern biotechnology.

The main drawbacks of the use of modern biotechnology in Turkey can be listed as follows:
1. Insufficient institutional capacity to undertake production of transgenic crops for the purpose of use, production, consumption and commercialization, including human resources, administrative mechanism and technical infrastructure.
2. Insufficient partnership between and among governmental and non-governmental institutions, including the private sector.
3. Lack of information on modern biotechnology of general public as consumers, decision makers, local communities as farmers and breeders and private sector.

Dr. Süleyman Karahan
Head of Field Crops Res. Dept
General Directorate of Agricultural Research
Ministry of Agriculture of Turkey
P.O. Box: 78
Yenimahalle/Ankara
Turkey
suleyman_karahan (at) ankara.tagem.gov.tr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 13 December 2002 16:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 114: Meeting the research needs of small farmers in developing countries

This is Dr Aisha, A. Badr, Egypt.

First of all we must separate working in research to meet 1) the needs of poor starving who may be farmers, fishers or forest workers and 2) the needs of small farmers.

For the first group: The starving countries need quick help of food/medicine and, in most cases, a place to protect them from environmental factors, so their need of biotechnology is something they may need in the long term. At the same time, we cannot ignore that they have ambitious researchers who need to follow the research biotechnology development and who need funds, facilities, laboratories and the experience of scientists, not only from developed countries but also from developing countries similar to their status or environments and may be surrounded by or previously suffered from the same conditions and solved their problems. They also need education as mentioned by Dr Muir (message 104. December 11).

For the second group - the needs of small farmers in developing countries: In fact, each developing country can put its priorities according to people needs, but we notice that the concentration is on one or two economical crops because of the lack of funds and because most of projects are coming with people graduated from developed countries. It is logical that developing countries must put funds into building infrastructure, health, education, services. So what funds remain for research is too little. Therefore, the need for funds, facilities and training are the first demand of researchers - in fact, there are enough human resources, as labourers or graduates.

Biotechnology research or funded projects can help small farmers by increasing the chances of work, either for labourers or technicians or even graduates who need training and work for building a new generation of researchers. It also can provide fruit and forest trees growers with fast-adapted selected native trees using micropropagation methods. For safe biotechnology research, it may concentrate on using natural substances in tissue culture and micropropagation cultures (substituting harmful chemicals by natural extracted substances). As mentioned by Dr. Muir regarding introduced tilapia: "When these were introduced into villages, several farmers quickly adopted the "new technology", dug shallow ponds, and soon had a cash crop. Unfortunately there was no one to purchase the fish, or no way to transport to markets". This is what happened in small projects and we need social economic studies.

In agreement with Denis Murphy (message 106, December 11) with his thanks for this interesting and benefical conference and "I hope we can expand this kind of dialogue in the future - May be via a more permanent forum?", I suggest to begin FAO site for association of "fao" participants in all fields of sciences for sharing thoughts, interests and needs of new discussions for new conferences, including work groups of different specializations

Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

[Regarding the last point, we certainly hope some of you may return to share your views and experiences in future conferences of this FAO Biotechnology Forum...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 09:55
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 115: Convincing farmers of research results

This is from Prof. Atef Ouf, Egypt.

High productive varieties, tolerant to different environmental stresses, are the most needed by small farmers. High advanced research could approach this target. But the small farmers can only use the new varieties if those are confirmed by good results. Therefore, it is very necessary to apply advanced research in small zones supported by governmental or private establishments (or through projects) to convince the farmers. In this way, we can also avoid the differences between results obtained in the laboratories and those in the field.

Prof. Atef Ouf,
Biotechnology Laboratory of Sugar Crops
Institute of Sugar Crops Research
Agricultural Research Center
Ministry of Agriculture
Egypt
drtropic (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 11:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 116: Corporate biotech research

One of the issues raised in this conference is the role of corporate research in the development of biotechnology, specifically genetic engineering.

As far as I know, the scientific community has very high ethical standards and will not tolerate cheats. Honest mistakes may be forgiven, but if a researcher is caught manufacturing, doctoring, or fudging data, his/her career is, for all intents and purposes, considered finished.

Several biotech companies have been repeatedly exposed as research cheats in the past. Yet, their data today continues to be taken at face value by many governments and scientists, and their funds set the research agenda of many researchers, particularly Third World researchers who could not enough research funds from their government.

In this conference, we have been asked to consider what kind of role corporate research should play in biotech development and genetic engineering research. If we were to adopt the high ethical standards of the scientific community, the answer should be obvious.

We are also asked what kind of role international research bodies like those in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) can play in biotech research. In so far as they can keep themselves independent of corporations tainted with dishonest research in the past, their research role might be welcomed. But when they embrace corporate funds and open themselves up to greater corporate influence, they will also be judged accordingly.

Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org

[The two questions referred to by Roberto Verzola at the end of the message come from Section 4 of the Background Document i.e. "For agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, how important should collaboration with the IARCs (International Agricultural Research Centres be? For agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, how important should collaboration with the private sector or universities in developed countries be?"...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 11:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 117: Priorities for agricultural research in biotechnology for developing countries

I am Rajaratnam Muhunthan, from Sri Lanka and hold a Permanent Residency status in Australia. I have a MSc degree with specialization in biotechnology, obtained from the Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka and am currently awaiting for the conformation of PhD candidature in the Australian Universities. Also, I have come from a traditional farmer's family background and, with my experience in the field of agricultural biotechnology that I have gained over the past 6-7 years from India and Sri Lanka, I think I can contribute to this conference in some way.

I am keenly following this conference and read all the messages posted by the people from diversified fields. One could see often the participants deviate from the theme of the conference and the Moderator is doing a wonderful job in putting the discussion back on the track with the theme.

All the developing countries share common characteristics, such as low income, low growth rate, unequal distribution of income, malnutrition, low life expectancy, high infant mortality, low levels of productivity, population growth and substantial dependence on agricultural production. Being developing countries, this means there are always limitations in resources, such as human and finance, for every field, including agricultural research. Development and poverty alleviation in these countries cannot be achieved at the cost of irrevocable damage to the environment. So to achieve, a new technology has become essential for "sustainable" development.

Biotechnology has been identified globally as the new technology for the new millennium, especially to solve the problems of food production caused by the ever-decreasing availability of arable land, increasing population (expected to increase from around 6 billion to about 8.5 billion by 2030) and dwindling aquatic resources. FAO predicts an increase in demand for agricultural production by 60%, of which more than 85% will be in the developing countries. Studies have shown that for every 10% increase in agricultural yields, there is a reduction of about 10% in the number of poor people and a decrease in childhood malnutrition.

In these predominantly agricultural countries, the major concern is to improve agricultural production through the introduction of new and appropriate technologies, of which biotechnology has been identified as a major thrust area for development and integration. It is necessary that both conventional and modern biotechnology have to be employed in combination with the traditional knowledge prevailing in those countries in order to achieve future food security. Therefore, it is necessary that the majority of the financial and human resources should be devoted to biotechnology in the agricultural sector.

The food habits of a country are tightly bound to the religion, cultural tradition of the community and the geological origin, and thus their crop priorities and livestock production. For example, rice is the staple food in many developing counties in Asia while cassava is an important crop in Africa.

1) Crop Sector

But whatever variation exists among the developing world, crop products such as cereals, legumes, vegetables and tubers are the main daily menu for the poor. Therefore, first priority should be given to the crop sector in the biotechnology developmental program. Of the different biotechnologies, DNA marker and fingerprinting and micropropagation and other in-vitro technologies should be prioritized in the breeding programs, with the aim of increasing productivity and development of disease/pest resistant varieties.

Apart, these technologies should be employed in the area of plantation sector and ornamental and horticultural industry for early selection and for mass propagation, that will enhance foreign exchange earning.

2) Forest Sector

Second priority should be given to the forest sector. Developing country forest reserves contain the sink of rich biodiversity and many species of plants and animals which are endemic for them are under threat of rapidly become extinct. These valuable genetic resources also include many medicinal plant species. These valuable genetic resources have to be preserved by employing molecular markers, DNA fingerprinting and in-vitro techniques, along with reproductive biological studies. It is also a way for preventing biopiracy.

3) Livestock and Fishery Sectors

Next, priority has to be given to these two sectors although among them, one may get priority over the other, depending on the availability of resources. Milk production of local breeds could be increased significantly by just employing conventional biotechnology, such as regulated and balanced feeding methods with fodder, silage and green. In the mean time, introduction of reproductive biotechnology and DNA technologies in genetics and breeding, to produce hybrids (e.g. crosses between local breeds and European breeds) with higher productivity has to be in focus.

Biotechnology for aquaculture to be in focus includes selective breeding and hybridization with the maximum utilization of sea and inland water resources. These two techniques can also be used in the ornamental fish industry, which can earn foreign exchange for the developing world.

4) Agro-industry

The focus on agro-industry is very important and most of them involve conventional biotechnology, such as biofertilizers, biopesticides, bioenergy, vermiculture, fodder, mushroom culture and micropropagation. This is the area where the village community could be directly involved in the research and such involvement will pay their livelihood. The direct interaction between the poor farmers and the technology will lead to the sustainability. Therefore, substantial amount of financial resource should be devoted in this area.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
2/48, Luxford Road
Mount Druitt
NSW 2770
Australia
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 12:01
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 118: Role and focus of biotechnology research

First, I would like to thank FAO for organising this interesting conference.

Concerning the role and focus of biotechnology research, I would like to remark again that it is up to each country to decide, but that a real societal deliberation process should take place first. At this point, I don't think this process is taking place in any country, or it might be Zambia. It does not happen in the "most democratic" countries like my own, the Netherlands. Here, 50 million euros may be put into research into late blight resistance in potato and tomato. Certainly, the focus will be on transgenic plants. This is public money but there is absolutely no real societal input in the direction of the research. All attempts so far to make transgenic late blight resistant plants have failed. OK, research takes time and costs money but even a rich country like this one cannot really afford this kind of expenditure, and moreover this all goes at the expense of research into other ways of solving the problem like, for example, breeding local varieties with better resistance. Much biotech research here is more aimed at how to obtain patents than on how to solve a certain agronomic or nutritional problem in the best way. For this reason alone it is not a good idea to give all biological material for free to the trans-national corporations (TNCs) as is happening in the public-private partnerships happening here.

As far as livestock is concerned, most modern biotech research and approaches have proved rather disastrous. Cloning is not a good idea, producing medicinal proteins in animals has failed so far etc. On the other hand, the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) research institute in Kenya has developed push-pull methods for cattle to fight off infectious insects that looks very promising and effective.

I agree that we should focus on biotechnologies that are acceptable for everybody. [Udeni Edirisinghe, message 88, December 9, wrote that "Thus there are many areas where there are no arguments and which all can agree to work on. If this conference can at least identify areas where there is common agreement, that would be an invaluable exercise"...Moderator]. It is also obviously advisable to work as cost effectively as possible. The low-tech solutions from the agro-ecological approach are, in that sense, also by far preferrable in my view.

As far as genomics is concerned [See e.g. message 30, November 21, by Sirkka Immonen..Moderator], and this would be my advice for the focus of research in that area, it is of the utmost importance to get a good view of what is the right understanding of it at this point. We had the Central Dogma and it has proven as good as completely false. The view of a fluid genome has proven compeletly right and there is a tremendous amount still to be learned about genomes. Seeing that all research has been going along false premises and wrong understandings, which led from genomics to proteomics to metabolomics etc., this has cost us immensely in terms of failed research projects and has not really delivered much useful. It is therefore imminent, not only for the "developing" world but certainly also for the rich countries, to really re-think priorities and approaches of the field of genomics. For this, the input from critical scientists and societal representatives needs to be taken much more seriously since their views have proven more correct, but this is not reflected in the decision process in almost every country.

Wytze de Lange
XminY solidarityfunds
De Witenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
wdl (at) xminy.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 13:18
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 119: Making breeding improvements succeed

This is Glenn Ashton again.

We can have all the tricks in the modern breeders arsenal thrown at the farmers of the world but unless there is a support network to take the needs of farmers to breeders and for the two to meaningfully interface, no breeding improvements, biotech or conventional, can succeed.

Study after study has shown the failure of extension systems and the short termism of agricultural improvement programmes - most of which last only the three years needed for a researcher to attain his/her degree - to be major constraints in improving the lot of farmers in developing nations around the world.

The mistakes of the green revolution, where crop improvement inputs were viewed in isolation, negatively impacting other aspects of smallholder sustainability, are threatened to be repeated if we continue our top-down approach proposed by corporate/research clusters. The concentration of seed, agrochemical, fertiliser, research budget, lobbying power and influence in this sector is possibly the greatest constraint on progress toward self sufficiency in food production. Until farmers around the world are free to pursue best practice, which includes independence from the above-mentioned input traits, and that practice is developed in concert with these farmers in need (recognising their traditional systems of knowledge and agricultural practice), all chance of improvement in livelihood will be stillborn.

Success cannot only be measured in commercial terms; it has to be measured in human terms. Until it is, humans will be the primary victims of short term or illusory progress trumpeted by commercial interests.

Glenn Ashton,
South Africa,
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 13:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 120: A contribution from Bolivia

This is Javier Franco, a consultant working in integrated crop management for several years in developing Andean countries of South America.

First of all, I congratulate all the participants although from so diverse points of view on biotechnology research and its application. However, I feel most of the differences in opinion reflect a poor knowledge of local real needs of developing countries. For this reason, I would like to suggest the following points on the "role and focus of biotechnology in agricultural research.......in developing countries":

- Certainly, we do need biotechnological research as a whole set of tools for a strong up-date development of our local agriculture and, therefore, we require the support of national and international institutions for the development of local capabilities.

- We should prioritise our real demands on the basis of a local "case by case" analysis: Type of biotechnology research (GMOs, tissue culture, molecular markers etc.); the user (poor farmer for food subsistance, or large farmer for export of products); short or long term impact.

- Rules on the application of biotech "tools" quite well established, honest and known.

- A real balance between "pros" and "con" biotech developments, based on scientific results by strengthening international cooperation.

- We have to be on the "biotech development train" because this is the only way to compete and solve some of the large number of different problems we suffer as developing countries.

Javier Franco, PhD
Cochabamba,
Bolivia
E-mail: jfranco (at) supernet.com.bo

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 14:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 121: Biotechnology esearch objectives // Country collaborations

The objectives of biotechnology research should be first prioritized at short term as well as at long term interest at primarily national level within national agricultural research systems (NARS). The biotechnology research conducted within a country should be monitored by an apex body to avoid duplicating the same research by different groups/universities, otherwise it will be waste of resources. But sub-regional and regional collaboration is also very important. Particularly for countries like Sri Lanka, where there are lots of constraints in doing the biotechnology research alone, but these problems could be sorted out by linked programs with regional biotechnology giants like India. For example, producing hybrid rice or doing GM crops research in Sri Lanka would not be economical, but these problems could be sorted out by doing them in collaboration with India. Most of the biotech giant companies, which are from the west, are much more interested in big business markets like India and China, therefore small countries like Sri Lanka cannot expect much from them.

Participation of the local private sector in biotechnology research could be encouraged in developing countries. Linking and affiliating the research institutes and universities in the developing countries with similar institutions in developed counties would be beneficial in biotechnology research, in particular with recombinant DNA technology, genomics and proteomics. Also, it is important to affiliate the universities from a developing country with a lesser capacity to do biotechnology research with universities from a country that has better capabilities to do the research. For example, affiliation of universities from Sri Lanka with universities in India or China will help Sri Lanka immensely to improve its biotechnology research and similarly African neighbors could do the same with South Africa.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
2/48, Luxford Road
Mount Druitt
NSW 2770
Australia
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 16 December 2002 15:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 122: Re: Meeting the research needs of small farmers in developing countries

About Message 114, December 13, by Dr. Aisha Badr:

Much of the problems of small farmers are economical rather than technology-oriented. To solve their problems, land reform, i.e. redistribution of lands, should take place, which in order to happen requires that political reform should take place. Which is beyond the scope of this conference.

So what biotechnology could do? The answer could be the "Biovillage Concept", that applies much of the conventional biotechnology with small farmers being the part of the project.

The term biovillage is used to denote the integration of biotechnology with the best in traditional techniques, in a manner that the livelihood security of rural people can be upgraded ecologically and economically. The aims of the biovillage project are to promote the efficient and sustainable use of natural resources and to achieve a continuous and steady growth of agricultural production while protecting and improving the environmental capital stocks of the village. The various crops, livestock and human beings are treated as major components of the biovillage.

As the livelihood security program is one of the major planks of the development initiatives of the project, the local people are being trained in aquaculture, growing of edible mushrooms, micropropagation, horticulture, floriculture, use of backyard space in the growing of vegetables, manufacturing of eco-friendly vermicompost, biofertilizers, biopesticides, goat rearing and poultry. These enterprises will not only help the rural population in using all their available resources but also improve the rural economy substantially. All the activities should have the support of the government. Government agencies could undertake to facilitate in marketing the vegetables received from the villages. This will give encouragement to other villagers also who have started participating in this endeavour to improve their earning and their status.

First identify biotechnologies that are environment-friendly, economically viable and socially equitable. The second step is adaptation of this technology to the specific socio-economic conditions of the resource-poor. There is a third dimension and that is to understand the kinds of issues involved in introducing new ideas. For instance, if you suddenly introduce dairy cattle into a local economic system, it may not work because management of dairy cattle is something very different from livestock-rearing by extensive grazing. The fourth point is accessing the resource-poor people to capital so that they will be in a position to make use of the technology for income-generating activities. The next step is to provide the support services in terms of infrastructure, input supply etc. The last and most important step is group action. In fact, in many technologies, the problem of organization and group action is the fundamental issue.

To raise the small farmers from poverty, substantial amounts of human and financial resources should be diverted into these type of projects from agricultural research. Then only true development of a country will become reality.

Rajaratnam Muhunthan
2/48, Luxford Road
Mount Druitt
NSW 2770
Australia
muhunthan_r (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 123: Policy research on gene business

This is a small message from Sami Samanta, West Bengal, India.

The role of biotechnology and its application in agriculture, particularly in a country like India, is immense. Many of us consider it as pro-corporate in the present context of mass propaganda by the so-called environmentalists. Politicians demand it to be pro-poor farmers. Unfortunately, very few people not belonging to this science but admiring as well as aware about the benefits arising out of its application, consider biotechnology as pro-human science.

In India, we need this science of biotechnology in every sphere of agricultural, horticultural, forestry, fishery, food and related entrepreneurship development. Many messages posted in this conference considered it only as development of transgenic crops and harvesting benefits out of this development.

In my mind, the application of biotechnology in the field of transgenic crops should be really based on the past achievements, not on the desire of corporate giants. And if so, then policy behind this should be like the policy universally adopted in the case of "golden rice". It would create no problem for the poor farmers of developing countries. For this, we must have an International Forum of Policy Research on Gene Business. Hopefully if this develops, a real harvest can be made from the utilization of present day scope of agricultural biotechnology and it would go a long way in determining our future in developing countries. Our days of running behind the aid from developed countries would go away.

S.K. Samanta, PhD
Deputy Director of Research,
B.C.Agril. University, West Bengal,
India
e-mail:drsamanta (at) vsnl.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 124: Re: Corporate biotech research

This is Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, responding to Roberto Verzola (Message 116, December 16):

Mr Verzola starts by stating "One of the issues raised in this conference is the role of corporate research in the development of biotechnology, specifically genetic engineering." This was not part of the subject matter set by the Moderator, but was inappropriately introduced into the discussion by Mr Verzola himself (message 51, November 26). As previously stated, I have no connection with, and no axe to grind for, GM companies, but as a fair-minded person I regard as distasteful and unsavoury, Mr Verzola's last-minute attempt to blacken them all and all their researchers with unsubstantiated allegations about unnamed ones as though they were established fact.

Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Chair, External Affairs, Institute of Food Science and Technology
Webmaster / Web Editor, Institute of Food Science and Technology
Vice President, European Food Law Association of the UK
Immediate Past Chair, IFT Committee for Global Interests
Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University
IFST Web address www.ifst.org
Personal Web address www.jralphb.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:18
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 125: Biotechnological research technologies are context-dependent

I am Bert van Asselt, a Ph.D. candidate at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, analyzing the role of so-called model systems research (e.g. model organisms like Arabidopsis and their related technologies) in molecular plant pathology from a historical and sociological perspective.

Being interested in how the different biotechnologies are developed and applied in different agrarian contexts, I started to read some contributions to this conference. Although I did not read all contributions, I recognized the point made by Michel Ferry (message 90, December 9) that the main debate has been on discussing whether or not biotechnology, and particularly GMOs, should be or not be a research priority for developing countries; instead of discussing priorities in agenda setting. I think it is important to see why this has been the case.

In my view, this is not so much because "this debate has not been concluded" as Ferry suggests, but more because of a wrong conception of what biotechnology is about. There is a tendency to view biotechnology as simply a tool, like physical tools as hammers and screw drivers. Such an analogy tends to give us the wrong impression that biotechnology is singular and can easily be applied in all areas of biological life. However, the history of biological science teaches us otherwise. Biotechnological research technologies have been developed in close interaction with research organisms of choice and are therefore largely context-dependent. Although there are examples of biotechnology research technologies which can be relatively straightforwardly applied, in various contexts (e.g. different type of plants and organisms), some specific procedures are still limited to specific plants and organisms. Transformation technology is an important example, variants exist, each having their own context of application. Initially, in the early 1980s, many biological scientists thought that they could easily apply recombinant DNA technologies in all kinds of circumstances - it turned out to be a bit more difficult. Biology is different from physics in this respect.

Because of the "intimate" relation between biotechnology research tools and their objects of research, it might be more important for developing countries to have a "biotech development train" (Javier Franco, message 120, December 16) themselves than is usually admitted. Plants and organisms of choice are different from the ones involved in biotechnology research in developed countries. In my view, it is questionable whether adoption and necessary adaptation of research procedures from developed countries will work in all cases and is the best way to go.

In genomics the same story holds. It is still quite uncertain whether results from model crops are applicable to other crops although genomic similarity is there (see Sirkka Immonen, message 30, November 21).

Bert van Asselt,
Wageningen University
Netherlands
Bert.vanAsselt (at) wur.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:18
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 126: Training biotechnology researchers in developing countries

I am Myriam Sanchez. I work for Corporacion Biotec, a Technology Development Center in Cali, Colombia.

I want to raise the issue of training biotechnology researchers in developing countries. Many interests, actors and circumstances influence and define the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda. Our researchers should be real actors in these definitions. How much is their training complemented to develop a strategic thinking? Other than biology techniques, do they develop a holistic view of the rural and agricultural situation of their countries? Do they have an inter-disciplinary approach and a social responsability orientation? On the other hand, policy makers related to biotechnology issues, are they well trained for their task in developing countries?

The dynamics of change for the techniques of biotechnology, ask for a flexible and rapid change in the educational system to prepare decision-makers, and not only operational persons, in developing countries.

Myriam Sanchez M
Cali
Colombia
myriams (at) cgiar.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:19
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 127: Farmers expertise and biotechnology research

First of all, on this last day, thanks very much for this great effort and thanks to all in this unique science family of this conference.

I would like to give attention to the fact that when we talk about biotechnology research to meet the needs of small farmers, we must consider that these small farmers have their own expertise. In fact, keeping close to the farmers may direct our attention to new research programs to help them.

For example, small rice farmers grow fish inside rice fields to increase income, while larger projects grow ducks with fish and both of them have expertise to tell us how to solve problems. On field visits, I noticed one of the problems that needs the help of biotechnology research in developing countries. The problem appeared when the health ministry spread water animals in irrigation channels to eat bilharzias snails. [Bilharzia (schistosomiasis) is a worm infection acquired through contact with fresh water in some tropical and subtropical regions...Moderator]. These creatures propagated quickly and the great numbers eat fish, and even fishing nets when they tried to catch them. This could be solved by biotechnology research in the new agenda and needs work groups (see my message 95, December 12). On the other hand, many years ago, scientists discovered that a plant grows on the edges of channels that kills bilharzias and snails. Recently, there is native project to encourage growing this plant. This proves that the national needs force any country to plan its own research agenda. At the same time, this needs great funds and needs new biotechnology research to assist national research. For example, new biotechnology research to transfer the effective gene of the previously mentioned plant to other plants adapted in different locations or countries, which suffer from bilharzias. Therefore, the national research agenda and FAO new agenda and cooperation of different specialists are all needed.

About collaboration and funds: It is important for universities to collaborate with research institutes because researchers of research institute are asked to devote time to guiding farmers. At the same time, they contact farmers to solve their problems by new research. Thus, what universities or academic work need to complete the process. So, collaboration by work and funds is needed. The same is needed for foreign collaboration because researchers in native research centers are the only people who can tell others (inside or outside collaborators) about the needs of small farmers, and others can help by funds or facilities.

Please give more attention to put old and new research of developing countries on the World Wide Web because, as I mentioned in conference 7 of this Forum [See archives of Conference 7...Moderator], we are one of the first countries which began carrying out research work long ago and there is a lot of beneficial research that needs to be applied that is hidden inside libraries. I found on the web that they are repeated now. All of us can help to create the largest scientific library.

Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt
momidic (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 December 2002 15:19
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 128: Demand-driven research to benefit small farmers

This is Chela Vazquez, writing from Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.

This conference has touched (maybe not intentionally) on the social and political nature of research. The conference's topic (agricultural research in biotechnology for developing countries) was intended to shed light on solutions (or approaches) to social problems.

I have appreciated interventions that have dealt with a core question: What is the target of research, and/or technologies used? Identification of the target group might be crucial in order to determine what technologies to use.

Miguel Altieri (message 94, December 10) has pointed out that about 1.4 billion people living in marginal lands would not benefit from mainstream biotechnological tools. Glenn Ashton (message 102, December 11 mentioned research in Zimbabwe that showed that problems of smallholder farmers would not be solved by the new biotech tool (i.e. genetic engineering). Michel Ferry and Roberto Verzola made comments on the suitability of biotech tools for small farmers' needs. E.M. Muralidharan (message 112, December 13) also mentioned the absence of the "poor farmers" voice in this conference. It is worth asking: Who are our stakeholders?

It deserves attention the "bottom-up" approach aimed at identifying demand-driven research that would benefit small and marginal farmers, using resources available to local people.

On the question of knowledge, coming from a developing country, I can relate to concerns expressed in this conference on "knowledge" concentrating in rich countries (usually the North). Some participants have mentioned that since most technological advances originate in rich countries, it is a problem for poor countries to learn and master new technologies that may be useful for development. Making sure that researchers and scientists learn the know-how of scientific developments is a fair and legitimate aspiration. However, it is another matter to tailor research in developing countries following the lead of industrialized nations that ultimately benefit mostly a few biotech giants.

Chela Vazquez
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
Minneapolis, Minnesota
United States
Tel: (612) 870-3441
cvazquez (at) iatp.org