Annotated Bibliography Entry  

Reference: CGIAR 2000a
Title: Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor. Proceedings of an International Conference, Washington D.C., 21-22 October 1999
Authors: Persley, G.J. and Lantin, M.M. (eds)
Publisher: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, 1818 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, USA
Publication details: 2000, 235p

Summary

Background
Conference findings
     Role of the CGIAR system
     Communicating About Biotechnology and Addressing Public Concerns  
Conclusion
Table of Contents with links to downloadable chapters

 

Back to CGIAR page

 

 

 

 

Background

The eradication of poverty and hunger in developing countries represents a major challenge that is dependent on agricultural productivity and the discerning application of science and technology to ensure the health of people and environments globally. To explore these issues, an international conference focused on biotechnology and its potential impact on agriculture in developing countries was held at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., on October 21-22, 1999. The conference was convened by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).  

The conference responded to the need for an open, inclusive, and participatory debate on potential benefits and risks of biotechnology, grounded in scientific evidence, and concerned with the common good. Over 400 people attended the conference. Participants included representatives from the national research organizations of developing and industrial countries, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, the private sector, senior policymakers, academics, scientists, international agricultural researchers, development communicators, and media. Diverse technological, environmental, public health, economic, ethical, and social viewpoints were actively sought so that linkages could be explored.  

Back to top

Conference Findings

Science is an elegant way of getting at the truth, according to science writer Rick Weiss.  It should follow then that molecular biology and other tools of modern biotechnology add elegance and precision to the pursuit of solutions to thwart poverty, malnutrition and food insecurity in too many countries around the world. In agriculture these enemies are manifest as pests, diseases, drought and other biotic and abiotic stresses that limit the productivity of plants and animals.

But not all appreciate the elegance of science in the pursuit of truth. The current debate about the potential utility of modern biotechnology for food and agriculture presents a challenge for modern science to contribute to the solution of human problems. This debate is currently focused on the initial applications of modern biotechnology in industrial country agriculture and its potential risks to human health and the environment. It is also intertwined with other often understated societal concerns such as food safety, animal welfare, industrialized agriculture, and the global role of large private-sector corporations.

A debate based on the best available empirical evidence on the relevance of modern science for poor people in developing countries is urgently needed. Its purpose would be to identify the most appropriate ways that molecular biology-based research might contribute to the solution of poor people’s problems. These problems and the socioeconomic context in which they occur are so different from the problems and context of the countries where most of the biotechnology debate currently takes place that the positions and conclusions from the current debate are largely irrelevant for poor farmers and poor consumers in developing countries. Despite this, many of the arguments in the current debate are extrapolated to conclusions about the potential utility of biotechnology for poor countries and poor people. There is an urgent need for a more focused debate on the role of modern agricultural biotechnology in developing countries, a debate that should and is being led by people from developing countries themselves.

Agricultural biotechnology in developing countries

The current use of modern biotechnology in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, and West Asia/North Africa was reviewed by policymakers from these regions, who led the discussion by addressing the following questions:
·   What are the challenges?
·   What are the opportunities for deploying biotechnological approaches?
·   What are the constraints to using these approaches?
·   How can the international agricultural research centers (IARCs) supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) further assist?

Public-private sector roles

Public-private roles have been changing due to declining public sector investments in R&D, and increasing private sector investments especially in biotechnology. There are three dimensions to this change:
·   change in leadership in biological research (from public to private)
·   change in ownership of technology
·   change in markets (the private sector is now more interested in developing country markets).

These changes have led to a major new issue: the private sector is interested in protecting its technology investments, and the public sector is interested in gaining access to private sector technologies. The challenge is: how to bridge the gap between the interests of the public and private sectors and redefine their roles.

The following lessons have been learned from public-private partnerships in biotechnology to date:
·   Learning each others’ ways is important for partnership success.
·   Both parties must have confidence in the technology being transferred.
·   Trust is the glue that holds partnerships together. Scientist-to-scientist relations help establish trust.
·   Having a capable catalytic/facilitating/intermediary institution is important (for example, USAID/Michigan State University, Rockefeller Foundation, CGIAR), as is generating seed funding.
·   Developing awareness and understanding of IPR is important. This may require training and institution building with the partner in a developing country.
·   IPR concerns should be addressed up front for the partnership to succeed.

Back to top

Role of the CGIAR system

Critical roles for the CGIAR system in the future are to enhance its role as:
·   Protector of the interests of the poor and facilitator and bridge-builder in biotechnology partnerships.
·   Facilitating public policy and innovative institutional arrangements.

Country needs are not all the same, so it is important to deal with the experience and needs of specific countries, and the specific problems in their agricultural sectors. There is a need to move the debate forward from the general to the specific. This would enable clarification of where the problems are and what can be done to solve them.

Specific suggestions are:

1. Facilitating information sharing. The CGIAR system could play a useful role in assembling and making accessible the factual information about what is happening in the use of modern biotechnology in developing countries. This could include analyses of the specific problems that need to be addressed in terms of the priorities, the science, the transfer of technology, the assessment and management of risks, and the associated public policy questions. These include regulation, public acceptance of new technologies, intellectual property management, trade and antitrust issues, capacity building, and investment.

2. Identifying problems and priority setting. The CGIAR system could assist in identifying the priority problems and opportunities to mobilize science to address the problems of the poor, and to identify specific technical, policy, and institutional problems and opportunities that need to be addresses, at the national, regional, or international level.

3. Supporting national capacity building. The CGIAR centers could provide further technical support for capacity building in NARS, in the centers’ areas of expertise. They would be working with individual countries, UN and other international agencies, and other sources of expertise to assist countries to develop expertise in knowledge management, regulatory affairs for environmental and health risk assessment, legal and patent issues, science and technology, and financial business management.

4. Ensuring compliance with agreed biosafety standards. The IARCs need to ensure that they comply with agreed national and international biosafety requirements and best practice in their host and partner countries. The IARCs may also be able to assist partner countries in the monitoring of environmental releases of GIOs an in identifying and using best practices in this rapidly evolving field.

5. Managing intellectual property. There is a need for better management of intellectual property by the IARCs and NARS, in line with national policies and legislation, facilitating access to, and freedom to operate with, appropriate technologies, and finding means to stimulate and reward traditional innovation and local inventions. The current initiatives, such as the central advisory service for intellectual property at ISNAR and other initiatives, will go some way toward meeting this need.

6. Public/private partnerships. The CGIAR systems should strengthen its efforts to develop and implement specific public/private sector partnerships, building on the experience of past efforts, and explore new modalities.

7. Communicating and addressing public concerns. Constant communication with stakeholders is required, to address public concerns and to engage in dialogue with proponents and opponents of new technologies, focusing on real issues that will have an impact on the poor in developing countries.

8. Beyond the work of the CGIAR, there is a need for:
·   More public and private R&D investments on targets that affect the livelihoods of the poor, and that are perceived to benefit both farmers and urban consumers
·   Local start-up companies to commercialize and distribute new technologies, including the continuing importance of local seed companies in the distribution of new plant varieties
·   Innovative mechanisms to stimulate more R&D on the problems important to the rural and urban poor, including exploring the feasibility of tax concessions in OECD countries and a global competitive grants facility
·   The need to explore new modalities for public/private sector partnerships, learning from past experience of those already in operation, especially in relation to intellectual property management.

Back to top

Communicating About Biotechnology and Addressing Public Concerns

A special session on communications concluded:
·   Public opinion may sometimes not be based on scientific fact, but it cannot be ignore; fears based on perceptions are nonetheless very real.
·   Improved dialogue is necessary to involve all stakeholders, including farmers and consumers and civil society, in the assessment of the risks and benefits of modern biotechnology.
·   Trust is the key element to pursue in addressing public perceptions.
·   Communicating about biotechnology is perception management, not just handing out information but engaging in dialogue.
·   Dialogue needs to be specific about which applications of biotechnology are being pursued, for what purpose, and the potential risks and benefits.

Conclusion

Biotechnology is only one tool, but a potentially important one, in the struggle to reduce poverty, improve food security, reduce malnutrition, and improve the livelihoods of the rural and urban poor.  The uncertainties and the risks are yet to be fully understood, and the possibilities are as yet not fully exploited.  It seems important not to deny people access to new technology, so long as they are fully informed of the potential risks and benefits and able to make their own choices.

By assessing the current and potential usefulness of modern biotechnologies for the solution of specific problems in agriculture, new ground is being broken in analyzing how best to assess and mobilize:
·   Rapid developments in science and technology
·   New public policy requirements
·   New institutional arrangements
·   Dialogue amongst all interested parties.

The exchange of a wealth of knowledge, information and experience, and the discussion of a variety of sometimes differing perspectives, will be valuable in moving ahead with the responsible dialogue and debate on the use of the new developments in science and technology for the benefits of society.

Back to top

CGIAR 2000a. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor.  Proceedings of an International Conference, Washington DC, 21-22 October 1999. 

Table of Contents

Foreword

Section One:

Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Promethean Science. G. J. Persley 3

Section Two: Setting the Scene

The Challenge of Poverty in the 21st Century: the Role of Science. I. Serageldin. 25

Feeding the Developing World in the Next Millenium: a Question of Science? A. McCalla and L. R. Brown. 32

Genetic Engineering and Food Security: Ecological and Livelihood Issues. M.S. Swaminathan. 37

Section Three: Analyzing Opportunities and Constraints in Selected Countries

China: Agricultural Biotechnology Opportunities to Meet the Challenges of Food Production. Q. Zhang. 45

India: Biotechnology Research and Development. M. Sharma. 51

Philippines: Challenges, Opportunities, and Constraints in Agricultural Biotechnology. R. E. de la Cruz. 58

Thailand: Biotechnology for Farm Products and Agro-Industries. M. Tanticharoen. 64

Brazil: Biotechnology and Agriculture to Meet the Challenges of Increased Food Production. M.J. A. Sampaio. 74

Costa Rica: Challenges and Opportunities in Biotechnology and Biodiversity. A. Sittenfeld, A. M. Espinoza, M. Munoz, & A. Zamora. 79

Mexico: Ensuring Environmental Safety While Benefiting from Biotechnology. A. Alvarez-Morales. 90

Egypt: Biotechnology from Laboratory to the Marketplace: Challenges and Opportunities. M. A. Madkour. 97

Iran: Hopes, Achievements, and Constraints in Agricultural Biotechnology. B. Ghareyazie. 100

Jordan: Status and Future Prospects of Biotechnology. M. M. Ajlouni and H. Malkawi. 105

Kenya: Biotechnology in Africa: Why the controversy? C. G. Ndiritu. 109

South Africa: Biotechnology for Innovation and Development. B. Njobe-Mbuli. 115

Zimbabwe: Exploitation of Biotechnology in Agricultural Research. C. J. Chetsanga. 118

Section Four: Controlling Environmental Risks

Science-Based Risk Assessment for the Approval and Use of Plants in Agricultural and Other Environments. R.J. Cook. 123

Genetically Modified Crops and Other Organisms: Implications for Agricultural Sustainability and Biodiversity. B. Johnson. 131

Sustainable Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. F. Gould and M.B. Cohen. 139

Section Five: Minimizing Health Risks

Potential Health Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms: How Can Allergens be Assessed and Minimized? S. B. Lehrer. 149

Section Six: Minimizing Social Risks

Modern Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture: Risks and Opportunities for the Poor. P. Pinstrup-Andersen and M. J. Cohen. 159

Section Seven: Ethics and Biotechnology

Ethical Challenges of Agricultural Biotechnology for Developing Countries. K. M. Leisinger. 173

Section Eight: Public and Private Sector Biotechnology Research

Evolving Role of the Public and Private Sector in Agricultural Biotechnology for Developing Countries. G. Barry and R. Horsch. 183

Genomics Research: Prospects for Improving Livestock Productivity. V. Nene, S. Morzaria, L. Baker, et al. 186

Leveraging Partnerships Between the Public and Private Sector - Experience of USAID's Agricultural Biotechnology Program. J. Lewis. 196

Section Nine: Protecting Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual Property Protection: Who Needs It? D. L. Richer. 203

Managing Intellectual Property - Challenges and Responses for Agricultural Research Institutes. J.L. Cohen. 209

Section Ten: Communicating about Biotechnology and Addressing Public Concerns 221

Section Eleven  Contributors 231   Acronyms and Abbreviations 234

Back to top

Web site: http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/contents.htm