Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

5. Conclusions

Even if still largely incomplete, the current data in the FAO-BioDeC allows some general conclusions to be made regarding the state of plant biotechnology research and development in developing countries. It is clear that major differences exist between regions (and within regions) regarding the application of biotechnologies particularly, but not only, in relation to research or development of transgenic crop varieties (Table 12).

The nature of the data sought and obtained by the initial FAO survey makes it difficult to dissect the relationship between transgenic research underway in each country and field trials of transgenic varieties underway in each country. In many instances, it is highly likely that the transgenic varieties under field trial (or commercially released) were developed outside of the country in advanced biotechnology laboratories and do not necessarily indicate that the country has any meaningful research capacity in transgenic crop research. A summary of the transgenic varieties reported to be released is presented in Table 13.

Even in cases where the transgenic variety has been developed in the country (e.g. for a locally adapted variety), it is still often likely that the transgene cassette and transformation protocols for the development of the transgenic variety were developed elsewhere. However, it should be borne in mind that such transboundary technology transfer is cost-effective and allows countries to bypass the risky and costly laboratory stages of research.

In relation to the traits introduced in the transgenic crop varieties, they include resistance to pathogens and pests, herbicide tolerance, abiotic stress tolerance, or modifications to quality traits. Table 12 and shows that 168 (35 percent) of the 479 total GM activities undertaken were for transgenic crops resistant to some pathogen, followed by those resistant to some pest, 97 activities (20 percent) and by those showing modification to some quality traits, 78 activities (16 percent), or resistance to some herbicide, 76 activities (~16 percent). Far less numerous, 40 activities (8 percent of the total GMOs) were transgenic varieties resistant to abiotic stresses and 20 activities (4 percent) being GMOs with multiple resistances. These figures obviously reflect the early stages of such transgenic research.

When experimental stage and field testing stage activities are looked at together (including activities whose stage of development are unspecified), the figures and trends change substantially (Figure 1). While pathogen resistance gathers the highest number of research activities (166), there is a substantial number of research activities towards improved quality traits (76 activities), such as vitamin content, oil composition, delayed ripening, or higher yield, particularly in Asia (34 activities) and Latin America (31 activities). This is reflecting the high interest of the public sector research in this promising area. Herbicide resistance (71 activities) ranks at nearly the same level as research in quality traits

TABLE 12
Summary by region of number of initiatives to develop GMOs

Modification 

 

Region

Africa

Asia

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Near East

Total

 

C

F

E

U

N

C

F

E

U

N

C

F

E

U

N

C

F

E

U

N

C

F

E

U

N

C

F

E

U

N

Pathogen resistance  - 3 4 - 3 2 19 35 14 9 - - 4 - 1 - 25 51 - 9 - 9 2 - 3 2 56 96 14 25
Pest resistance  2 1 3 - 3 3 16 17 14 7 - - - - - 1 20 15 - 10 - 2 3 - 2 6 39 38 14 22
Stress resistance  - - 2 - 2 - 5 7 6 6 - - 3 - 1 - 1 9 - 5 - 1 6 - 1 - 7 27 6 15
Herbicide resistance  - 11 1 - 1 - 5 - 6 4 1 1 1 - 2 4 34 11 - 7 - - 1 - 1 5 51 14 6 15
Multiple resistance  - 3 - - 1 - 3 2 - 3 - - - - - 1 11 - - 3 - - - - - 1 17 2 - 7
Quality traits - - - - - 2 3 27 4 8 - - 10 - 5 - 19 12 - 8 - - 1 - 1 2 22 50 4 22
Total  2 18 10 - 3 7 51 88 44 10 1 1 18 - 7 6 110 98 - 11 - 12 13 - 4 16 192 227 44 35

C: number of GM varieties released as commercial varieties; F: number of GM varieties in field trials; E: number of activities at experimental level (including laboratory or glasshouse activities); U: number of GM varieties at unknown status; N: number of involved countries. (Totals of this column have been calculated taking into account that sometimes more than one activity is being carried out by the same country, although that country will only be counted once.)

TABLE 13
GMOs reported as released varieties

Plant species Character  Country 
Cotton  Resistance to Lepidoptera  Indonesia 
Cotton 1  Resistance to Lepidoptera  China 
Cotton 2 Resistance to Lepidoptera  South Africa 
Cotton 3 Resistance to Lepidoptera  China 

Green pepper 1 

Virus resistance  China 
Maize  Not specified  Bulgaria 
Maize 2 Resistance to Lepidoptera  South Africa 
Maize 2 Resistance to Lepidoptera  Argentina 
Maize 2 Insect and herbicide resistance (Bt)  Argentina 

Maize 2

Resistance to glufosinate  Argentina 
Petunia  Altered flower colour  China 
Soybean 2 Resistance to glyphosate  Uruguay 
Soybean 3 Resistance to glyphosate  Argentina 
Tomato 1 Virus resistance  China 
Tomato 2 Delayed fruit ripening  China, the Philippines 

1. Cases where the gene for resistance was identified in the country that released the variety and the modified  varieties were developed locally.

2. Imported varieties.

3. Cases where the gene for resistance was imported, then crossed to local genotypes

FIGURE 1
Regional GM crop research activities on different traits

Status of research and application of crop biotechnologies in developing countries

As may be expected for a trait commercialized by the private sector, the number of field testing activities for herbicide resistance (51) is far in excess of the research initiatives taking place (14). This may simply reflect the  fact that the research phase (i.e. development of the herbicide and herbicide tolerant transgene) was conducted at a few locations worldwide and then the technology was distributed already incorporated into crop varieties/seeds (either locally or broadly adapted). This is reflected by the relatively high number of herbicide tolerant transgenic crop varieties already available on some markets. The investment of public funds in an area such as herbicide tolerance that is well covered by private investment might not be justified, except in cases where the need for herbicide tolerant crops will not be met by the private sector (e.g. the case for the development of Striga-tolerant maize in Africa). The commercially released GM crops are not only limited in their traits, they are also restricted in their diversity, almost all being commodity crops, (See Table 13). However, the FAO-BioDeC has documented a number of research activities being carried out on a wider range of crops (e.g. banana, cassava, cowpea, plantain, rice and sorghum) and traits (abiotic stress tolerance and quality traits) relevant for food security.

TABLE 14
Summary by region of number of initiatives to develop techniques in plant biotechnology

Trait

 

Region

Africa

Asia

Eastern Europe

Latin America

Near East

Total

 

C

T

E

U

N

C

T

E

U

N

C

T

E

U

N

C

T

E

U

N

C

T

E

U

N

C

T

E

U

N

Plant propagation 15 1 117 2 21 18 9 92 64 10 1 21 96 2 9 16 126 52 2 9 9 1 19 - 8 59 158 376 70 57
Microbial 
techniques 
1 - 22 6 12 - - 20 6 7 10 10 11 - 5 1 17 17 - 6 - - 3 - 2 12 27 73 12 30
Molecular markers  - - 35 - 12 - - 33 28 9 - 14 30 - 7 2 93 165 - 9 - - 45 - 6 2 107 308 28 43
Diagnostics - - 28 2 10 - - 7 4 7 1 3 21 - 6 - 17 23 1 7 - - 12 - 6 1 20 91 7 36
Total  16 1 202 10 21 18 9 152 102 10 12 48 158 2 10 19 253 257 3 9 9 1 79 - 9 74 312 848 117 59

C: technology used on a routine basis and products available on the market; T: results being tested; E: number of activities at experimental level (including laboratory or glasshouse activities); U: activities in unknown phase; N: number of countries involved. (Totals of this column have been calculated taking into account that sometimes more than one activity is being carried out by the same country, although that country will only be counted once.)

According to the FAO-BioDeC, no work is reported as having taken place in the field of nematode resistance in any of the five regions, in spite of the relative importance of the losses caused by nematodes. Another so far scarcely addressed but fundamental problem is the control of post-harvest losses. It is well known that about one-third of the agricultural production in less developed countries is lost due to post-harvest losses. The construction of transgenic varieties characterized by delayed ripening through the block of ethylene production may result also in increased resistance to bacterial and fungal spoilage organisms. While some Latin American and Asian countries are already devoting research efforts to this area, the FAO-BioDeC suggests that African countries are not yet including this area in their research objectives.

In many instances, the lack of national legal frameworks on biosafety (either regulating transboundary movement of transgenics or of field testing requirements1), seems to be delaying the testing of transgenic crops and their dissemination to farmers. This applies to both transgenic varieties either developed nationally or imported from other countries. The establishment of appropriate regulatory frameworks for transgenic biotechnology is currently one decisive factor for the regulation of trade of transgenic biotechnology products. This issue will require careful consideration by countries in the context of their long-term plans regarding both food security and competitiveness in international agricultural markets. Such issues should certainly be considered in any countries where public (or private) investment in agricultural biotechnology has been identified as a priority in national agricultural research agendas.

Other factors limiting the rapid adoption of GMOs in developing countries are the lack of appropriate mechanisms for technology transfer as well as the high complexity and costs of the currently elaborated GMO regulating systems; lack of appropriate intellectual property rights (IPR) protection; and weak national plant breeding programmes and seed systems. These combine to limit applications only for GM products with large commercial markets (FAO, 2004b).

Other non-GM biotechnologies, particularly those towards plant propagation and molecular markers, are widely applied in the five regions. The numbers are reduced when the use of diagnostic and microbial techniques were looked at (Table14). The uptake of molecular marker technologies does not reflect their potential, however, with over 400 crop/technique combinations being researched or tested, there should be a marked increase in utilization in the near future, with the possibility of improved efficiency in plant breeding and germplasm characterization. In general, efforts could be enhanced in all areas, as the application of low-cost genetic marker techniques could significantly improve progress in plant breeding.

Many of the plant cell-and tissue-culture technologies have been readily available for many years, and have been taken up where appropriate, such as in microprogagation of vegetatively propagated crops, for example, banana and date palm. Given the necessary R&D costs, expectation of success can be good, as many crops previously considered recalcitrant are now commercial successes, either as a means of propagation of elite stocks, or as a source of virus free material. Input into in vitro regeneration may be expected to increase, as it is a prerequisite for many of the technologies. It should be borne in mind that labour costs are a major determining factor for the commercial viability of many micropropagation and tissue-culture enterprises, especially those developing products for export markets.

However, the uptake of micropropagation techniques for in vitro germplasm conservation is low. This may be attributed to the existence of established whole plant germplasm collections for species where in vitro conservation is appropriate, leading to reluctance to provide funding for in vitro facilities. The balance between in vitro and whole plant collections may change as facilities for, and capabilities in, in vitro conservation increase and existing plant collections need rejuvenation.

The suspected under-reporting of cell biology, diagnostics, molecular marker and food processing techniques may be due to the fact that they are routinely used in some countries. As a result, some informants did not consider them to be `high tech' biotechnologies to be documented in the FAO-BioDeC, or it may be a reflection of a lack of knowledge by some respondents of the extent of their use in agricultural sectors. Future surveys should strive to bring out as much detail as possible on these relatively affordable and less controversial biotechnologies.

Microbial techniques (e.g. Bt) for the control of pests and pathogens may represent an effective alternative to genetic transformation for resistance to pests and diseases. While it may be initially perceived that biocontrol agents can enjoy broader public acceptance than transgenic crops, this may depend on the scale of use of such agents, their channels of distribution (public versus private sector), whether they are related to any microbes causing human disease, and what the environmental effects would be of large scale application of microbial control agents in agriculture. At present, differing risk assessment procedures are applied to Bt delivered within transgenic plants than to Bt delivered as a pesticide (e.g within organic production). In theory, however, many microbial control agents could allow the avoidance of the presence of chemical residues from conventional pesticides on horticultural crops and on fruits for fresh/immediate consumption.

Nitrogen-fixation has long been a desired yet elusive `green' biotechnology. However, the objective of improving the plant-Rhizobium symbiosis or other associations is not easy to achieve, due to the complexity of the relationships, the multiplicity of factors involved, the specificity of the interaction between the two organisms, the influence of the environment on the system expression and the possible competition between beneficial and other soil microflora. In the near future, the resources needed for achieving biological nitrogen fixation in non-legumes will be competing with the wide range of biotechnological approaches that have a greater chance of achieving results in a shorter time frame, such as development of crop plants with enhanced nitrogen use efficiency or nitrogen fixation tolerance to water deficits. However, the use of model crop legumes such as Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus in combination with high-throughput genomics research will lead to an elucidation of the genetic basis of nitrogen fixation in legume symbionts, and allow decisions to be made regarding the transfer of nitrogen fixation capacity to non-leguminous crops.

The use of microorganisms to change food characteristics by fermentation to produce bread and beer has been an established technology for thousands of years, but microorganisms are also widely used in other commercial food processing and enzyme production, farm scale or domestic processes, mostly using agricultural or plant products as the starting point. The ability to modify microbial genomes has expanded the range of products that can be produced, and enabled modification of a wider range of agricultural products. Future developments of this technology will go hand in hand with the ability to engineer plants to produce chemicals, or modified food products, reducing the need for separate subsequent microbial processing.

From the FAO-BioDeC, it can be concluded that countries like Argentina, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Mexico and South Africa now have well developed agricultural biotechnology programmes in both NARS and in the academic sector. These countries are now approaching the leading edge of biotechnology applications and have significant research capacity. For instance, a Chinese research team has now sequenced the entire rice genome in a matter of months; a task that would have been considered unachievable by most countries a few years ago. In addition it shows that a range of countries including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand in Asia; Cameroon, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia and Zimbabwe in Africa, and Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Venezuela, in Latin America, now have medium-scale biotechnology programmes usually in a few key areas.

5.1 CHALLENGES FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Biotechnology could support solving many of the constraints that limit crop, livestock, forestry and fishery production. However, national programmes need to ensure that all sectors, including resource-poor rural populations in marginal areas where productivity increases are difficult to achieve, benefit from biotechnology.

Certain biotechnology require high investments and should therefore complement existing technologies, be demand-driven, and used only when it offers a comparative advantage. Priority setting should involve multiple stakeholders and take into account national development policies, private sector interests and market opportunities.

Since much biotechnology research is conducted by private companies in industrialized countries, appropriate models for intellectual property rights legislation are critical for access to the results of biotechnology research originating elsewhere. Equitable partnerships between foreign and local institutions can help to acquire know-how and yet soften the patent requirements. Legislation is also needed to regulate activities e.g. specifications for introduced genetic material, animals and plants. Developing countries may need assistance in developing appropriate legislation and setting up regulatory bodies for biosafety. Legislation developed must be consistent with evolving international policy agreements and reflect national positions and needs.

It is imperative that developing countries are not left at the edge of development nor in a disadvantaged position. For this, capacity building initiatives are needed, including policy development, institutional strengthening and human capacities putting into place incentives for adequate and sustained funding and regulatory framework development.

FAO, together with other partners, is ready to help member countries to optimize their capacity to develop, adapt and use biotechnology and its products to meet their needs, to enhance food security and improve living standards, while minimizing possible risks and negative impacts.


1 One of the major components of the FAO-BioDeC is the section on “Developing Country Biotechnology Profiles”, having the objective to provide a platform on which developing country biotechnology related policies, regulations and activities can be readily accessed. All developing FAO member countries are covered and only a few have biotechnology regulatory frameworks in place.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page