Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
3
Challenges and Future Considerations
in Realizing the Global Potential
of Agricultural Biotechnology
I
f a common theme emerged from the workshop, it was that biotech-
nology constitutes only one part of a complex and nuanced set of
investments needed to enhance crop productivity, increase yields,
and ultimately ensure food security. The movement of biotechnological
innovations into farming systems of the developing world faces several
challenges, including simply knowing what crop characteristics farmers
need. Proponents of genetic improvements in crops do not always appear
attuned to the perspectives of poor farmers and have not thoroughly
assessed their needs, so they are limited in their ability to forecast how
farmers would benefit. In addition, unless developing countries can solve
some of their difficult social, economic, and infrastructure problems, they
may never realize the benefits of agricultural biotechnologies that could
help to improve productivity and align farmers with modern agricultural
practices. The difficult question of which investments to address first
could not be answered easily by the workshop participants. In fact, as
the workshop progressed, participants identified several key challenges
that seemed to require simultaneous attention if biotechnology were to be
successfully introduced. The interconnectivity of those challenges formed
the core of the workshop discussions.
OCR for page 22
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
CHALLENGE 1: DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE
AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES
There is a need to develop technologies that complement existing
farming systems and native crops, to provide them at affordable
prices, and that are safe for humans and the environment.
Locally-developed applications need to be designed to meet local
conditions and user needs. It cannot be assumed that existing applica-
tions can simply be transferred: many, if not most, existing biotechnology
applications are not appropriate for the conditions in developing coun-
tries. For instance, herbicide-tolerant crops have been slow to penetrate
Africa and South Asia because the tolerant varieties are not adapted to
crops and conditions that are most relevant to developing countries, and
more importantly, no-till technologies in small farm production systems
have been difficult to develop.
Diverse Farming Systems
The agricultural landscape in the developing world consists of
diverse crops and various types of farming systems that differ depend-
ing on locality, geography, and availability of natural resources. Bongiwe
Njobe, director general of the Department of Agriculture in South Africa,
contrasted the homogeneity of Asian farming systems at the start of the
Green Revolution with the diversity of African systems today. She noted
that a study by the InterAcademy Council identified four existing farm
systems in Africa that have the greatest potential to increase African food
security (see Box 3-1) and asserted that the nature of these crop systems
needs to drive the choice of biotechnology applications rather than shap-
ing agriculture to fit the available applications. Factors that might affect
which crops are selected for genetic engineering and which specific traits
are modified depend on the systems, some of which are rain-fed and
others irrigated, some of which center on growing maize (tropical maize,
not the temperate varieties grown in North America), and some of which
are focused on root crops or trees. Many workshop participants therefore
believed that agricultural biotechnology could be a “rainbow revolution”
that would apply a broad array of technologies and innovation systems
where they are most needed.
Native Crops and Local Needs
Orphan Crops
Crops with relatively little global commercial potential—which
include cassavas, east African highland bananas, cowpeas, and yams—are
OCR for page 23
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Box 3-1
The Most Promising African Farming
Systems for Increasing Food Security
An InterAcademy Council report examined several farming systems in
Africa and concluded that four existing systems showed the most prom-
ise for increasing African food security. The selection of the four systems
was based on the potential for reducing malnutrition and for increasing
agricultural productivity.
The maize mixed system is the most important food production system
in east Africa and southern Africa and similar systems are found in west
Africa, covering 10 percent of land area in sub-Saharan Africa and used
by 15 percent of the agriculture population there. Maize is the main crop,
and cash sources include cattle, small ruminants, poultry, tobacco, coffee,
cotton, migrant remittances, and off-farm work. This system is currently
in crisis because of shortages of seed and fertilizer.
The cereal/root crop mixed system covers 13 percent of land area and
is used by 15 percent of the agriculture population in sub-Saharan Africa.
The system shares some characteristics with the maize mixed system,
with such cereals as maize, sorghum, and millet as staples; but it differs
in that root crops such as yam, cassava, and legumes are present when
animal labor is absent. The system is defined by relatively low population
density, abundant arable land, poor communication infrastructure, and
higher temperatures. The main vulnerabilities are due to drought, decline
in soil fertility and structure, and weeds.
The irrigated farming system is linked to areas with surface water
resources, but it is found across all zones. It covers 2 percent of land
area and 17 percent of the agriculture population in middle east and north
Africa and 1 percent of land area and 2 percent of the agriculture popula-
tion in sub-Saharan Africa. The system is based primarily on rice, cotton,
vegetables, rain-fed crops, cattle, and poultry. Crop failure is generally
not a problem, but the system is vulnerable to water shortages, scheme
breakdowns, and deteriorating input-to-output price ratios.
The tree crop-based system relies on the production of industrial tree
crops, primarily cocoa, coffee, oil palm, and rubber; it covers 3 percent
of land area and 6 percent of the agriculture population in sub-Saharan
Africa. Food crops, such as maize, are planted between tree crops for
subsistence, and root crops, such as cassava and yam, are the main
staples. Tree crop and food crop failures are not common. The main vul-
nerabilities to the system are related to population pressures on natural
resources, declines in trade and market share, and withdrawal from
industrial crop research and extension.
SOURCE: InterAcademy Council, 2004.
OCR for page 24
4 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
grown in many developing countries for subsistence and are staples that
meet local food needs and demands. Some of these “orphan crops” are
cash crops, such as the sugar cassava in Brazil, that help farmers to pur-
chase nonfood items such as medicine and books. But these orphans have
received little attention from biotechnology seed companies in the indus-
trialized world. Among the reasons that transgenic seeds have not been
successfully adopted by farmers in developing countries is that the avail-
able seeds do not reflect their region’s local crops or the natural resources
available to grow them. A few workshop participants suggested that a
genetically altered toxin-free Lathyrus—a protein-rich legume grown in
Asia—might be of more help for small farmers; whereas the split seeds
of Lathyrus are soaked overnight to clear them of toxins, the danger of
toxicity is not eliminated for all its potential uses.
Weeds and Labor
Engineering of crops to be herbicide-tolerant reduces the amount
of time spent on manual weed control, an activity that in the develop-
ing world exceeds by far any other human activity related to agricul-
ture. However, as Suman Sahai, a representative of the Gene Campaign,
pointed out, India has surplus labor, so herbicide-tolerant crops can take
wage-labor opportunities away from rural women. Furthermore, what
constitutes a weed is subjective and can differ between cultures. The
purported weeds growing among crop plants are collected by women for
use as animal feed or as medicinal plants for local human health and vet-
erinary care. The potential conflict between labor-saving innovations and
job security in developing countries is often overlooked by technology
developers, but increased productivity by definition means doing more
work with less input, and labor is one input. The question is whether
there will be other ways for displaced laborers to spend their time to
obtain income.
Affordability and Accessibility
Workshop participants agreed that technologies and products need to
be available at affordable prices especially for small farmers and the poor.
If small farmers cannot pay for or sustain a technology or product, it will
not be useful, regardless of its potential. Transgenic seed is expensive for
a small farmer, and the extra funds expended represent an opportunity
cost. Transgenic crops, such as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton, can pro-
vide better yields than local varieties because they are able to overcome
specific constraints, such as insect pests, but they may not perform as
well as local varieties if environmental conditions—for example, water
OCR for page 25
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
availability—are not optimal. Therefore, farmers take a risk in investing
in transgenic crops. Benjavan Rerkasem, of Chiang Mai University in
Thailand, noted that in addition, there is little incentive for investment if
products that are developed specifically for the poor, such as micronutri-
ent-enriched grain, cost the farmer more but do not provide greater yield
or command higher prices. The challenge will lie in providing incentives
to farmers and other components of the production and marketing system
to maintain affordable products and create a sustainable marketplace.
CHALLENGE 2: DETERMINING PRIORITIES
FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
National leaders often need to make decisions about priori-
ties with limited financial resources, user input, and scientific
understanding.
Decision-makers in developing countries who want their agricultural
systems to benefit from biotechnology have a difficult task. They try to
formulate a strategy to encourage the development of appropriate appli-
cations of biotechnology when they have few mechanisms for knowing
what is most needed by farmers or wanted by consumers and with lim-
ited financial resources to pursue an agenda for introducing transgenic
crops from outside sources or developing them internally. In their efforts
to define a research agenda that is scientifically sound, decision-makers
need scientific advice—something that is often lacking in developing
countries.
Determining Research Needs
Developing a strategy for improving agriculture requires a decision
of which research directions to support. Many workshop participants
felt that with regard to biotechnology, leadership in setting priorities has
not been coming from the governments of developing countries nor has
it been determined by the needs of subsistence farmers, as suggested by
Bonjiwe Njobe. Rather, leadership has stemmed from the investment,
development, and modernization of biotechnologies from the private
sector where the emphasis is on market forces to drive the process. The
implication of a supply-led market approach is that a product is often
created and sold on the basis of its branding by its producer rather than
the stated desires of consumers or the quality-assurance pronouncements
of the regulatory system. Because of the profit motivation, some partici-
pants believe the private sector may move products to market and sell
them to farmers before the risks and benefits related to the products are
sufficiently evaluated.
OCR for page 26
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Government officials that want to lead in setting the agenda for agri-
cultural biotechnology have little internal guidance in making decisions,
a task that is not made easier by potentially conflicting agricultural pri-
orities. As Njobe stated, the crop sector may want genetically engineered
maize, the livestock sector may want to pursue organic markets, and the
two goals may not be compatible. More often than not in developing
countries, however, getting input on priorities is rare because there are
few mechanisms for engaging farmers, especially small-holder farmers.
According to Rebecca Nelson, of Cornell University, the academic research
community has traditionally done a poor job in looking at culinary and
post-harvest characteristics, properties that help plants to compete with
weeds, and other elements that are important in field settings but may not
be recognized by laboratory researchers.
It is crucial that government leaders keep the bigger picture in mind
when determining priorities so that they do not promote a scientific
solution to a problem that can be solved more easily by other kinds of
investment. Jean Halloran, of Consumers Union, cited a meeting with
Mozambique colleagues that illustrated how regional hunger problems
could be solved. Her colleagues noted that while some regions of Mozam-
bique were experiencing drought, other parts of the country were not
affected and were able to produce healthy crops. Although scientists
might want to address the problem of drought by engineering drought-
tolerant crops, the problem of hunger could be better solved by improv-
ing north-south transportation networks. Halloran concluded by stating
that “it would probably take a much smaller investment in roads than
in scientific research to address the problem.” Don Doering, of Winrock
International, added that there are a few good global or regional models
for estimating the value of some of the traits that crop breeders have dis-
cussed and that such models would be useful in helping decision-makers
decide between, for instance, investing in the development of a drought-
tolerant crop and funding the installation of irrigation systems.
Resource Limitations and Priorities
Across Africa, agriculture usually receives less than 5 percent of most
government budgets (World Bank, 2008) because support for scientific
investment must compete with other urgent political, economic, and
social priorities. In the science budget itself, all types of research compete
for scarce funding. Workshop participants expressed a concern that in a
resource-constrained environment, existing scientific efforts on important
agricultural problems will be superseded by an emphasis on modern
biotechnology. John Lynam, of the Rockefeller Foundation, observed that
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
has shifted research investment away from methods of soil, crop, and
OCR for page 27
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
resource management and toward breeding and biotechnology and that
there is also movement away from whole-plant methods toward molecu-
lar methods.
Nelson added that conventional breeding has delivered remarkable
improvements to crops such as Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, kale, broccoli,
cauliflower, and cabbage and that nothing produced by transgenic tech-
nology has been “quite so unbelievable” as the successful transformation
of those vegetables by nontransgenic means.
Many participants agreed, suggesting that investment in molecular
biology has been lopsided over the last few decades and has left many
developing countries with a large gap in scientific expertise, ranging
from whole-plant physiology to plant breeding. For example, Rerkasem
mentioned that rice breeders are becoming “extinct” in Thailand—a situ-
ation that will work against the introduction of biotechnology because
breeding is still needed to incorporate promising new genes into local
varieties of rice.
Moreover, Lyman said, priorities have to be established to bring trans-
genic innovations and breeding programs together, and this is difficult
because current breeding programs are highly decentralized and focus on
a multiplicity of crops grown in diverse agroecologies. “The question,” he
said, “is how to make decisions on what crop is to be transformed with
biotechnology and then on how transformation will be applied in a wide
array of breeding programs.”
CHALLENGE 3: ENGAGING THE CITIZENRY
Public participatory mechanisms are needed to gauge needs
and to address concerns.
Implementing a democratic decision-making model and soliciting
public participation can result in more sound decisions, the development
of technologies that are locally adapted and better suited, and a bridging
of the rhetorical divide surrounding agricultural biotechnology. Honest
public discussions are crucial for moving technologies forward because
they may reveal concerns that governments and the scientific commu-
nity have not expected. Mechanisms that provide a sense of transpar-
ency can aid the public in understanding, accepting, and adopting new
technologies.
Transparent Decision-Making Processes
A decision to introduce transgenic crops may involve economic and
environmental risks, and nations need a legal framework for evaluating
the risks, communicating them to the public, and justifying decisions. A
OCR for page 28
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
perceived lack of transparency in a government’s decision-making pro-
cess will cause citizens to become distrustful of government authority.
Without a sufficient process, even the most well-intended efforts of the
international research community will be suspect, according to Phelix
Majiwa, of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation in Nairobi,
because it will not be evident that the efforts are being driven on behalf
of local needs. Legal avenues for people to get information need to be
created, according to Suman Sahai. The United States has a free press and
the Freedom of Information Act, but in many other countries the public
has no way to get such information.
The public also needs confidence that its own government has the
scientific capability to conduct safety assessments of biotechnology prod-
ucts. Most developing countries are too small to set up their own biosafety
protocols and screening procedures, so their policy-makers look to oth-
ers who have already established biosafety programs for guidance and
assistance. These countries also rely on regional centers, laboratories, and
procedures from more advanced countries in their region for assistance. 1
In 2003, the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted guidelines, devel-
oped over several years by a Codex task force, that describe an interna-
tionally-agreed approach for assessing the safety of genetically modified
crops for human food uses. The Codex guidelines are intended for use by
governments developing food safety oversight systems for foods derived
from such crops.
Efforts such as the GMO Guidelines Project (GMOERA, 2008) aim
to help developing countries to establish approaches and methods for
biosafety assessment of genetically modified organisms. The project,
described by David Andow of the University of Minnesota, was funded by
the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation and it brought together
public-sector scientists from all over the world to help local scientists to
build that capacity.
Processes for Public Participation
Even if a regulatory process is in place, products that are approved
and introduced into the market may be held in suspicion. Countries that
do not broadly consult or involve their citizens in public discourse—espe-
cially as it pertains to novel scientific applications, such as agricultural
biotechnology—find that their citizens question whose interests deci-
1 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has also developed
guidance for its member governments, especially developing countries, to help them use
sound and consistent decision-making frameworks when confronting biosecurity issues
(FAO, 2006b, 2007).
OCR for page 29
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
sions serve in the long term. Introducing a new product or technology
without the public’s consideration can perpetuate the image of ambiguity
in decision-making and therefore perpetuate the belief held by many in
the developing world that the “biotechnology agenda” is set by the rich
industrialized nations to exploit the poor in the developing world.
In some countries, consumers have demanded labeling as a way of
allowing them to decide whether or not to accept this technology. There
is a need for consumers to be aware of the huge differences in degree
of possible environmental and human risk from different technologies.
Given the enormous difficulties and the cost of labeling in small country
food and feed systems, consumers will need to be made aware of both
and avoid “blanket” requirements for labeling.
Many international agreements—including the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety, which grew out of the Convention on Biological Diver-
sity—mandate public participation in their decision-making process with
respect to transgenic technologies. Many workshop participants, however,
expressed concern that developing countries have fallen short in that
respect. As one workshop participant observed, both the advocates of bio-
technology and those who are violently opposed to it may be sponsored
by external sources, and the voices of the local populations most affected
by the proposals for agricultural biotechnology are often unheard.
It is crucial to engage the public in scientific discourse well before
the regulatory stage so that citizens understand and sense ownership of
their country’s scientific decisions. Public forums can shed light on issues
not anticipated by policy-makers and scientists and can provide valuable
input into decisions as to the most appropriate technologies to pursue.
Farmer Participation
One participant described her recent involvement in a consultation
workshop in west Africa on millet- and sorghum-based systems. She said
that the farmers’ representative told her, “We want a sheep’s head; you
bring us a dog’s head.” Because of the mismatch between technology
development in agricultural biotechnology and technology adoption by
users, a more accurate way to assess needs and challenges is to involve
relevant stakeholders directly at various stages of the decision-making
process.
Matching needs with capabilities is itself difficult. Farmers often have
trouble in conceptualizing the sorts of things that biotechnology might
be able to accomplish for them. Likewise, scientists may have trouble in
translating generic characteristics, such as “improved quality of flour,”
into specific traits that research can focus on.
Rural and tribal communities are often the most difficult to engage
OCR for page 30
0 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
in public participation activities, and some workshop participants argued
that not enough attention has been paid to developing structures and
methods of communication. Most of the methods used to inform and
educate the public about agricultural biotechnology include websites and
registers, but most rural communities in developing countries do not have
access to the Internet or even print media, and most of the population is
illiterate.
Illiteracy does not equate to lack of wisdom; many in developing
countries who cannot read or write have enormous reserves of knowledge
and can be valuable participants in a discussion of crop improvement.
Their trust is an absolute necessity if the new technologies are to benefit
them. The foremost thing to keep in mind, according to Sahai, is that there
is a large information gap to be bridged by communication methods to
accommodate not just the local language but the local idiom. Aside from
lacking access to written literature and being widely dispersed geographi-
cally, farmers are busy—many are women who also have child-care obli-
gations—so their daily schedules are a consideration when information
is transferred.
One method that has been tried with success in Asia and in some
parts of Africa, Sahai mentioned, is street theater and roadside theater
containing caricature and skits, where information is turned into acces-
sible packets that people can immediately respond to. Theater groups,
nongovernment organizations, and governments will all need to rise to
the challenge of creating space where a formal structure can be used for
activities to foster public participation. Sahai added that “there is no point
in sitting in a conference room and hoping that tribal communities can
come inside and start participating. It’s intimidating.”
Cultural and Religious Issues
New technologies can be perceived as threatening cultural and reli-
gious traditions, according to some participants. For example, it is pos-
sible that Muslims or Hindus will not be persuaded that swine- or cattle-
derived DNA inserted, for example, into sheep or a plant is merely a
generic molecule; Germans will view genetic manipulation from the per-
spective of their history; and Indonesians will filter information through
lenses shaped by their cultural heritage and cultural preferences. Societies
differ in their perceptions of what is natural and unnatural, acceptable or
unacceptable. Many workshop participants suggested that it is important
for policy-makers to recognize and respect the cultural and religious sen-
sitivities of citizens that may place limits on agricultural biotechnology. In
India, according to Sahai, “the whole concept of taking part in decision-
making” in all sectors of society is becoming important to citizens. At the
OCR for page 31
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
end of the day, she said, you cannot simply dispense with the right of
choice that almost all nations grant to both consumers and farmers.
Biotechnology and the Long-Term Public Interest
Developing countries are not alone in the challenge of involving the
public in discussions about genetically engineered crops. Researchers
in developed nations have faced some of the same issues about trans-
parency and inclusiveness. Piet van der Meer, of Horizons sprl Co. in
Belgium, noted that it is easy to say that public participation is needed,
but it is extremely difficult to implement: “I have had many, many, many
hearings over the years on antibiotic resistance and herbicide resistance
and so forth. And you can hold one meeting one day, and the next day
more people will come and say we have not been consulted.” As another
example, Harald Schmidt, of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in Eng-
land, described a website that his organization created to solicit views on
genetically modified (GM) crops; 38,000 people (of 60 million in the UK)
registered their views on the site, but Schmidt asked, “How representative
of the debate is that?”
According to participants, the experience of the developed countries
demonstrates that a period of public education and familiarization is often
needed before people can be actively brought into decision-making struc-
tures. And before biotechnology applications are approved and accepted,
it is crucial to inform the public about their benefits and risks.
There are also likely to be concerns that agriculture will come to
be largely controlled by large transnational corporations that produce
and distribute transgenic seed, potentially harming small farmers in the
developing world and disrupting social structures. Those issues require
frank discussion between policy-makers and farmers. Calestous Juma, of
Harvard University, noted that in Africa, instead of seeing farmers saving
seed, he witnessed a small-market structure of women who grew seed
and sold it. That attests to the power of markets, but some participants
wondered what will become of those women who rely on the practice of
saving seeds when transgenic seeds—some which are self-terminating
after one season and many which are protected as intellectual property—
are introduced.
CHALLENGE 4: BUILDING SCIENTIFIC AND LOCAL CAPACITY
Investment is needed to build and strengthen national scientific
expertise in developing countries.
Scientists are needed to develop, evaluate, and implement advances
OCR for page 36
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Box 3-2
International Agreements on
Biodiversity and Biosafety
Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international
agreement that provides a framework for building regulatory systems to
protect biodiversity. The CBD, which grew out of the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro and began enforcement in December 1993, is a com-
prehensive approach to biodiversity conservation, the sustainable use of
natural resources, and equitable sharing of benefits of genetic resources.
It addresses biosafety through guidelines that protect human health and
the environment from the potentially adverse effects of biotechnology and
its products while providing for technology access and transfer.
The convention was developed through a series of intergovernment
negotiating meetings and has been signed by many developing countries.
In ratifying the CBD, governments have stated their commitment to devel-
oping national biodiversity strategies and action plans and to integrating
them into broader national plans for the environment and development.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
On January 29, 2000, more than 130 countries adopted a supple-
mentary agreement to the CBD known as the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety. The protocol is designed to protect biodiversity from risks
posed by living organisms that have been modified through modern
biotechnology. It establishes a procedure for an advanced informed
agreement by signatory countries whereby each would be informed
of the potential risks posed by living modified organisms before such
organisms could be imported into the countries. Recognizing the lack
of scientific certainty as to the effects of living modified organisms on
biodiversity and human health, the protocol references a precautionary
approach and reaffirms Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environ-
ment and Development. Furthermore, the protocol provides a Biosafety
Clearing-House to facilitate information exchange and to assist countries
in implementing the protocol. It does not affect trade in processed foods
or pharmaceutical products that contain genetically modified organisms.
The protocol entered into force on September 11, 2003.
SOURCE: Cartagena Protocol, 2008; CBD, 2008.
OCR for page 37
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
ments strive to use the best available scientific and technical information
to guide biosafety negotiations, no systematic efforts have been made to
compile available knowledge on the subject, so the direct contributions
of government delegates are usually the only scientific input (Gaugitsch,
2002; NRC, 2002b). The report mentions that existing studies on the safety
of genetically engineered crops for human health, the environment, and
socioeconomic systems continue to be a major issue of public concern
and continue to be subject to divergent interpretations and conclusions
(Gupta, 2000; NRC, 2002b). The report concludes that “the persistence
of varied interpretations of the available information illustrates the need
for scientific assessment to guide discussions and negotiations on major
issues of international interest” (Susskind, 1994; NRC, 2002b).
Many workshop participants felt that although the intentions of the
convention and the protocol were appropriate, the implementation left
much to be desired. Lynam pointed out that different interest groups and
government sectors often participate in different components of treaty
arrangements but do not interact to discuss their implications fully. As a
result, smaller developing countries are unable to respond to regulations
in a coherent and consistent way, much less to enforce them. Juma added
that it was generally difficult for developing nations to create regulatory
frameworks before they have any capacity to be involved in biotechnol-
ogy themselves: “It’s almost like trying to design rules and regulations for
governing swimming pools in the Sahara.”
Majiwa pointed out that in many countries the lawyers do not play a
large part in the debates about biotechnology regulations and guidelines.
As a result, he explained, their posture is to wait to see whom they can
take to court. “I believe this is going to drive very many African countries
behind,” he said, “particularly when there is massive introduction of GM
products into the market.” He stressed the need to bring the legal com-
munity into the discussions that lead to the implementation of regulatory
regimes.
Van der Meer emphasized the importance of public-sector scientists’
participation in developing national policies on biotechnology: “They
should not only be aware of the existing rules; they should be involved in
making the rules. They should take a far more active role.” He also urged
public-sector scientists to become involved in international negotiations
on the biosafety protocol. In the past, he noted, nongovernment organi-
zations and the private sector were well represented in the negotiations,
but the biggest stakeholders in the outcome—scientists in public-sector
research—were not there. “That the protocol is adopted and enforced does
not mean that it is over. There will be many, many years of negotiations
on how to function in this, and it is crucial that the public sector be part
of that.”
OCR for page 38
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
However, the fundamental problem, as was discussed, is the lack of
scientific capacity, as a result of which many developing countries are
uncomfortable with the effectiveness of their own regulatory and control
systems. Participants gave many examples of the illegal spread of geneti-
cally engineered crops across Asia, India, and China. Enforcement costs
can be high and need to be figured into the cost of regulations. One partic-
ipant recommended that the United Nations and other organizations help
by monitoring the implications of new regulations in developing coun-
tries and comparing the time and costs of particular regulation with their
benefits. Such analysis might assist governments in developing policies
for the introduction of biotechnology and the protection of biodiversity.
Resolving Trade Issues
Many groups have opposed the use of agricultural biotechnology, and
some nations have responded to the opposition by placing import-market
restrictions on genetically engineered crops. The European Union (EU),
Korea, and Japan have restrictions on imports of genetically engineered
crops and seeds. In 1999, for example, the EU imposed a “de facto mora-
torium” on import of GM products from the United States, Canada, and
Argentina that had not been approved for sale in the Union. In 2003, the
United States and its allies filed a suit in the World Trade Organization
(WTO) against the EU for undue delay in the approval of GM products.2
Agricultural commodity trade can be affected by a variety of govern-
ment policies, according to Anderson, one of which includes the require-
ment to label GM foods. He argued that developing countries are less
likely to adopt GM crops out of fear that their access to large foreign
markets will be curtailed. For African countries, he asserted, a conse-
quence of avoiding the products is that they forgo potential gains by
their own farmers and domestic consumers; they produce less food than
2 In 2006, the WTO ruled in a 1,148-page document that the EU had violated WTO rules by
the undue delay in the approval of GM products. The WTO also ruled that bans by Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Luxembourg violated WTO rules on a number of
GM products despite the fact that the European Commission had approved the products
as safe. The EU decided not to appeal against the ruling partly because the EU has put in
place its own precautionary system and has approved the import of nine GM products since
2004. The nine EU-approved GM varieties include herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant
maize (developed by Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and Syngenta), two herbicide-tolerant
maize (by Bayer and Monsanto), one insect-resistant maize (by Monsanto), an herbicide-
tolerant soya bean (by Monsanto), and an herbicide-tolerant sugar beet (by Monsanto).
However, approvals for cultivation still remain highly restricted and only one variety of
pest-resistant maize (developed by Monsanto) has been cleared for production. As of March
2008, there were 18 GM varieties waiting for cultivation approval in the EU and another 50
(mainly maize and soyabean) awaiting import clearance for use in food and animal feed.
OCR for page 39
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
they could otherwise. The issue of labeling is complex, however, because
labeling could also be used to describe the benefits of GM foods, and some
would argue that markets perform better when consumers are informed.
Anderson pointed to the WTO process as important for reducing trade
distortions and improving how natural resources are better used to pro-
duce food and fiber.
Protecting Proprietary Research
Intellectual property (IP) rights affect the ability of public-sector and
private-sector researchers to conduct innovative research in agriculture
and protect the transfer of knowledge and technology. From the per-
spective of some workshop participants, IP rights have recently come
to be seen as a major barrier to the advancement of agricultural biotech-
nologies. The opportunities and challenges of IP and proprietary sci-
ence include issues related to ownership, access, economic benefit, and
national sovereignty.
Intellectual Property Institutions
In the past century, a battery of legal instruments have been used to
protect IP, but these were of little direct relevance for public-sector and
nonprofit scientists. Agricultural research information was openly acces-
sible to all: germplasm was pooled in gene banks by countries around the
world, and collaboration and free exchange of cultivars occurred between
research centers in developed countries, such as the United States, gene
banks in international agricultural research centers, and users in interna-
tional agricultural research systems worldwide. As Brian Wright, of the
University of California at Berkeley, pointed out, farmers also contributed
freely to the pool of agricultural technology—nearly all mechanical inno-
vations in the United States came from farmers and blacksmiths who did
not patent any of their innovations.
The current IP framework has changed substantially since 1980. The
University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980 (the Bayh-
Dole Act) provided a U.S. legal framework for technologies developed
with public money to be licensed out from the public to the private sec-
tor and encouraged researchers to transfer their technologies into the
marketplace. Decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed
U.S. researchers to patent life forms, which included not only plants but
the constituents of plants, genes, and bacteria. A major revolution in the
worldwide exchange of IP followed soon after and brought about the
signing of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) in 1994 (see Box 3-3).
OCR for page 40
40 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Box 3-3
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
The TRIPS agreement is an international treaty negotiated in 1994
that sets minimum standards for most forms of intellectual property
(IP) regulation in all member countries of the World Trade Organization
(WTO). Of importance to biotechnology developments, the TRIPS agree-
ment deals with copyright and related rights; patents, including the pro-
tection of new varieties of plants; trademarks; undisclosed or confidential
information, including trade secrets and test data; and specified enforce-
ment procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution procedures.
The significance of the TRIPS agreement is that it narrows the global
gap in how IP is protected and moves the protections under a common
international framework. It establishes minimum levels of IP protection
for governments to provide fellow WTO members. IP protection encour-
ages creation and invention, especially in the period after the protection
expires and creations and inventions enter the public domain. The TRIPS
agreement itself introduced IP law into the international trading system
for the first time, and it remains the most comprehensive international
agreement on intellectual property.
The agreement highlighted another principle: that IP protection
should lead to innovation and technology transfer, that such protection
would benefit producers and users, and that it would enhance economic
and social welfare. Developing countries in particular see technology
transfer as a great benefit to protect IP rights. The TRIPS agreement
includes a number of important provisions, such as one that requires
governments in developed countries to provide incentives for companies
to transfer technology to least-developed countries.
Although the TRIPS obligations apply equally to all member states,
developing countries were provided more time to implement applicable
changes in their national laws. The TRIPS agreement took effect on
January 1, 1995, and developed countries were given 1 year to ensure
that their laws and practices conformed to the agreement. Developing
countries and transition economies (under specified conditions) were
given 5 years, until 2000; and least-developed countries had 11 years,
until 2006.
SOURCE: WTO, 2008.
OCR for page 41
4
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
IP rights protections in developing countries are too weak to provide
much incentive for private companies to transfer technology or research to
parties in those countries, Pray asserted, because they cannot be assured
that other companies in the country will be prohibited from capitalizing
on their inventions without fair compensation. If technologies cannot be
protected, there is a disincentive to investing in developing them further.
For investigators who want to develop products that can benefit the
developing world, an important consideration is where to patent a new
technology. Although the TRIPS agreement requires countries to develop
IP protections that innovators can apply for, patents are granted by indi-
vidual nations. There is no “international” patent that applies worldwide.
Thus the desired outcome by Richard Meagher’s research group when it
discovered how to control the electrochemical state of arsenic was that
companies in the industrialized world would license the technology and
develop it further. However, the group also wanted it to be freely avail-
able for use in India, where arsenic poisoning is a severe problem. To
accomplish those goals, the group applied for patents in the United States
but not in India: if it had not applied for patents in the United States,
few companies would have stepped forward to invest in improving the
technology.
A similar approach was taken in the development of vitamin A–
enriched golden rice; material transfer agreements were used to obtain
permissions and to incorporate dozens of patents owned by several par-
ties. The patents were not filed in places like Bangladesh, so the rice can
be freely used and improved in that country where many people suffer
from vitamin A deficiency.
Yet Wright worried that future IP rights agreements might make it
more difficult to allow such tailored arrangements to proceed so that the
public sector, nonprofit organizations, or companies in poor countries
can have the confidence to use an innovation without worrying about
infringement. The UN World Intellectual Property Organization has been
working on a Substantive Patent Law Treaty that would institute a world-
wide patent system modeled on U.S. patent criteria and management. He
encouraged representatives of developing countries to follow the discus-
sions closely.
Protection of Public-Sector and Collaboratie Research
The fact that IP regimes are not robust in developing countries may
adversely affect public-sector researchers in those countries. Although
IP rights exist to protect artisan discoveries, such as cooking or plowing
improvements, discoveries in biology are generally outside the scope of
such protection. When public researchers in developing countries collabo-
OCR for page 42
4 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
rate with overseas researchers, it is likely that patentable inventions flow-
ing from the collaboration are protected under an industrialized country’s
IP regime. Developing country investigators might not be aware that
because they are co-inventors, their names should be included on patent
filings.
Majiwa recalled a Kenyan scientist who collaborated with U.S. sci-
entists on the biological aspects of extremophiles only to find later that
enzymes from the microorganisms, which came from Kenya, were being
used in laundry detergents for commercial profit in the U.S. market. No
benefits accrued to the African collaborator or to his country, and the pur-
ported exploitation made national headlines in Kenya. Majiwa suggested
that Africans are discouraged from engaging in research at all because IP
protections for innovations that might come out of their research are lack-
ing in their own countries, and they are worried that patents on research
innovations they have worked on locally may have already been filed by
others elsewhere.
The existence of very strong IP protections in the United States is
hurting public-sector innovation in agricultural biotechnology, accord-
ing to Wright. That is due in part to the nature of genetically engineered
seeds, which are essentially “little carriers” of attributes that have been
built on by many innovators. IP related to those attributes accumulates,
and each time someone wants to add an attribute, all the other technolo-
gies inherent in that seed “package” must be licensed. In Wright’s view,
the costs of licensing and disputes over patents have so slowed the prog-
ress of research that they are among the factors driving the consolidation
of seed companies to the point where now only a few major players are
involved in engineering new crops.
That reality is hurting public-sector investigators, who may be freed
to work on the seed packages in the laboratory but are at a disadvantage
when the time comes to negotiate with the package owners about com-
mercializing the improvements they have made. Moreover, the protec-
tiveness over IP is spilling over into the public sector. At a time when the
world is looking to the public sector to develop innovations in orphan
crops and take the technology to the developing world, the public sector
is finding itself with more responsibility but less freedom to operate.
Intellectual Property May Not Be as Much of a Barrier for Deeloping
Countries
Many workshop participants felt that IP barriers could be overcome
because companies like DuPont, as Kishore pointed out, have been will-
ing to make IP available to others, especially when it was related to sub-
sistence farming.
OCR for page 43
4
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Juma suggested that countries that have been able to industrialize
quickly have relied on tapping into technologies that are now in the pub-
lic domain because their patent terms have expired. “One of the reasons
they are developing so fast is that they are harvesting publicly available
knowledge that they don’t have to pay for. And when they come closer to
the cutting edge, they are forced to start inventing. By that time, they have
accumulated enough capital to pay for the inventive activities.”
Workshop participants were encouraged by the existence of nonprofit
organizations that provide access to IP rights and benefit agricultural
researchers in the public sector who otherwise would not have the means
to obtain the rights to IP (see Box 3-4).
CHALLENGE 7: ANTICIPATING FUTURE
NEEDS AND DIRECTIONS
Researchers and decision-makers need to anticipate changes
that will affect agricultural production and consumer demand.
Climate Change
Although climate models are evolving, there is a considerable degree
of uncertainty in predicting the future climate of Africa and south Asia
and, by association, the environment for farming in the future. Extreme
weather events seem likely, but their pattern and extent are not fully
understood. Agricultural planners need the help of cross-disciplinary
tools to predict how global climate change will affect the natural resource
base of farming. Remote-sensing technology, which uses imaging instru-
ments mounted on satellites or aircraft, can provide a record of changes
in a region, including the locations of human settlements, vegetation,
and rainfall. The images can be used to examine environmental trends
and human, agricultural, and environmental interactions, including the
movement of plant and animal diseases. Such information may ultimately
help nations to better understand the characteristics needed in crops and
animals in a changing world.
Increased Meat Demand
As the developing world reaches greater levels of food security and
wealth, population growth and rapid income growth leading to changes
in lifestyle will increase demands for meat (Delgado et al., 1999). The
developing world’s population is projected to reach 3.4 billion by 2020,
and its demand for meat is projected to increase by 2.8 percent a year
from 1993 to 2020 (Pinstrup-Andersen et al., 1999; Pinstrup-Andersen,
OCR for page 44
44 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Box 3-4
Organizations that Promote Access to
Research and Transfer Technology
Several initiatives have been developed to bridge proprietary informa-
tion and public research. Three such efforts were highlighted in the work-
shop: the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA),
the Biological Innovation for Open Society (BiOS), and the African Agri-
cultural Technology Foundation (AATF).
Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture
PIPRA (http://www.pipra.org) is a nonprofit entity based at the
University of California, Davis, that supports agricultural innovation for
humanitarian and small-scale commercial purposes. Members include
over 40 universities, public agencies, and nonprofit institutions. PIPRA
helps innovators in developing countries to gain access to new agricul-
tural technologies by educating farmers and scientists on international IP
law and development and by providing a network to create licensing and
material transfer agreements with its members.
Biological Innovation for Open Society
BiOS (http://www.bios.net) is a relatively new Australian-based
effort that helps disadvantaged communities to develop new innovation
systems for disadvantaged communities by applying the open-source
idea to modern biotechnology research. The goal of BiOS is to enable
innovations by fostering a protected commons of biotechnologies that
is freely available to the worldwide research community under the terms
of an open-source–based license. If BiOS can develop the right kinds of
technologies, plant researchers and breeders throughout the world would
gain greater access to information.
African Agricultural Technology Foundation
The AATF (http://www.aatf-africa.org) is a not-for-profit organization
designed to facilitate and promote public-private partnerships for the
access and delivery of appropriate proprietary agricultural technologies
for use by resource-poor small-holder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa.
AATF engages in technology scoping, interaction with technology devel-
opers, and negotiation. It keeps abreast of the latest information about
agricultural production constraints and priorities in Africa and is familiar
with major national, regional, and Africa-wide policies on agricultural
development. AATF devotes the majority of its attention to proven tech-
nologies rather than those in the concept stage.
SOURCE: AATF, 2008; BiOS, 2008; PIPRA, 2008.
OCR for page 45
4
GLOBAL POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
2000). However, many developing countries may not be able to meet the
demand for meat, given current animal-husbandry practices and con-
straints (such as animal diseases and malnutrition) that make increased
livestock production unsustainable. Biotechnology might be able to have
a considerable effect on livestock production by improving the genetics,
health, and nutrition of food animals.
An alternative solution, according to Kishore, would be to promote
vegetable protein instead of animal protein. In his view, changing the
world’s eating habits could enable agricultural systems to conserve natu-
ral resources better. Vegetable proteins are superior to poultry, beef, and
pork in energy input requirements, protein output relative to land use,
and labor requirements. For example, soy is a good source of protein and
is also a legume that improves soil quality and could help to increase the
sustainability of agricultural resources. If the protein consumption of the
developing world continues as projected and matches that of developed
countries, soy and other vegetable proteins will need to be explored to
create sustainable farming systems.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Many discussions and debates about the use of agricultural biotech-
nology focus on whether its use brings greater benefits than risks to
society. There have been fewer reflections from the perspective of what
agricultural biotechnology can do to help developing countries, and it did
not take long for the workshop participants to highlight the fact that tech-
nology does not exist in a vacuum. Agricultural biotechnology is only one
of many potential tools in a complex package of solutions for economic
development. Understanding how to build systems that can guide and
manage the use of this relatively new technology to benefit developing
countries became a central theme of the workshop.
Calestous Juma, who chaired the workshop’s steering committee,
expressed hope in his welcoming remarks that the workshop might pave
the way for a better understanding of how society perceives new tech-
nologies and the factors that play into its adoption. Society is quick to
consider the immediate safety questions for the environment and human
health, but he argued that we need more venues for examining percep-
tions of risk, the socioeconomic consequences of new technologies, and
policies and processes that encourage adoption and acceptance of technol-
ogy and trust in it.
The participants in the workshop, who came from both developed
and developing countries, contributed a rich set of perspectives to the
examination of those issues. Many potential benefits of new agricultural
OCR for page 46
4 GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
biotechnologies were outlined during the course of the workshop, but it
will be a critical exercise that will need to meet many objectives associated
with setting priorities for the allocation of resources. There will be many
entities playing active roles in addressing those priorities, and global
partnerships will be a key part enabling the new technologies to move
forward in ways that help developing countries.
