SUMMARY CONFERENCE 2
How appropriate are currently available biotechnologies for the forestry sector in developing countries
At the end of this e-mail conference, two Summary Documents were written. They provide a synopsis of the main arguments and concerns discussed and, as such, aim to represent the current "state of the debate" for that particular topic. The Long Version is roughly 5 pages long and includes references to specific messages posted during the conference. The Short Version is just over 1 page and does not contain any references.
I. Summary Document (Short Version) - Conference 2
Nearly 170 Forum members registered for this second conference, which ran
from 25 April to 30 June 2000. Thirty-two messages were posted and the vast
majority (88%) were from participants living in developed countries. The 32
messages were written by 15 individuals (9% of all registered) representing
10 different countries. Genetic modification was by far the biotechnology of
greatest interest in the discussions. Developments in tissue culture and
molecular markers were largely considered to be extensions of currently
accepted and well-known practices.
Some of the main points from the conference
a) The point was made several times that modern biotechnology should only be
realistically developed for species which already have a substantial
infrastructure in basic plantation technology (e.g. in seed collection,
nursery techniques, silviculture and in tree breeding and related research).
Thus, that it should be an enhancement to classical breeding rather than a
substitute.
b) The long generation time of most forest trees will likely be an important
difference in the wide-scale development and application of genetic
modification technology to trees, compared with crop species. For example,
patents may only provide protection for a finite time period (e.g. 20
years), but biotechnology patents applied to trees may expire prior to the
trees being harvested. On the contrary, if payments for the use of
biotechnology are made at the development stage, then substantial economic
benefits must be present in order to carry the costs of the investments. The
long rotations (i.e., lifetimes) of most trees also raised concern about the
risk of pests and pathogens developing resistance to genetically modified
(GM) resistant trees. However, it was also pointed out that because of the
long time period required to develop and use GM trees, the forestry sector
should have more time to monitor and correct trends/policies regarding GM
trees than the crop sector with GM crops.
Participants argued that the use of GM trees in developing countries would
largely be limited to trees that are harvested in a relatively short period
of time (e.g., 10 years of age), such as those grown in intensive plantation
forestry (e.g. Eucalyptus in South America or Africa; short rotation
Populus). Only for species with relatively short rotation-ages, it was
predicted that investments in biotechnology might be profitable. As well,
testing should be more reliable with short-rotation species, as expression
of the GM trait can be tested and monitored for the expected rotation time.
c) There was a clear consensus that many factors need to be considered in
deciding whether or not any biotechnology is appropriate in forestry (i.e.,
biological, economical, and political restraints and opportunities).
Therefore it was not easy to say that modern biotechnology is either
appropriate or not appropriate for developing countries.
d) Many of the messages touched on the fact that there was much substantial
public awareness and concern regarding the risks and benefits of
biotechnology. It was discussed several times that there is a greater need
for the public to be informed about these technologies, and how they could
be applied to specific situations in forestry, before they should or will be
used.
e) Several of the issues that might have been expected to have been debated
(e.g. ownership/control of biotechnologies; the ability of developing
countries to regulate and monitor the use of biotechnology products or the
potential impact of Bacillus thuriengensis toxins on other organisms), were
either not discussed or were discussed to a far lesser degree than in the
crop conference. This was probably due to the higher level of application of
genetic modification technology in the crop sector today compared to
forestry, where no GM trees have yet been commercially released.
A range of other topics was also discussed in the conference and these can
be followed by consulting the actual messages posted (on the web at
http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c2logs.htm ) or reading the Long Version of
the Summary Document.
