AJFNS Volume 2 No. 2 July 2002
By the year 2025, 83% of the expected global population of 8.5 billion will be living in developing countries. The capacity of global resources and technologies to satisfy the demands of this growing population for food and other agricultural commodities is not assured. In 25 years, Africa's population is projected to increase to 1.3 billion, bringing about intense interest in Africa's agricultural and economic performance, and the potential impact of biotechnology on the economy and the welfare of the continent. Under Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), most processes and many products of biotechnology research are patentable. African countries generally have weak national scientific infrastructure and capacity to innovate and patent new materials as well as enforce biosafety requirements. In order for countries to access biotechnology products or technologies, it will become increasingly important to have policies and procedures on intellectual property rights in place at the national and institutional levels. In view of the extent of the collaborative international programs taking place, strong local partners are required to expedite the adaptation of technologies and materials that are developed through collaborative research. Lack of biotechnological innovations or their limited diffusion by farmers has increased the technological gap with developed countries. Biotechnology will affect even the most isolated villages in various ways. It will neither be wise nor justified for African countries not to effectively participate in this revolution and fight for gaining some of its expected advantages. The current policy indifference will not help our farmers.
Key
words: biotechnology, patent, global, agriculture, genetically modified
(GM), transgenic, biosafety, food security
LA BIOTECHNOLOGIE PEUT AMÉLIORER LA SÉCURITÉ ALIMENTAIRE EN AFRIQUE
RÉSUMÉ
D'ici l'an 2025, 83% de la population mondiale prévue à 8,5 milliards vivront dans des pays en développement. La capacité des ressources et des technologies mondiales de satisfaire les demandes de cette population croissante en matière d'alimentation et d'autres ressources agricoles n'est pas assurée. Selon les projections, dans 25 ans la population de l'Afrique augmentera de 1,3 milliards et s'accompagnera d'un intérêt intense aux performances agricoles et économiques de l'Afrique, ainsi que l'impact éventuel de la biotechnologie sur l'économie et le bien-être du continent. D'après les Droits de Propriété Intellectuelle en matière de Commerce (TRIPS), la plupart des procédés et des produits de la recherche en biotechnologie sont brevetables. En général, les pays africains ont des infrastructures scientifiques faibles au niveau national et de faibles capacités d'innover et de breveter de nouveaux produits et de mettre en vigueur les exigences de la prévention des risques biotechnologiques. Pour que ces pays aient accès aux produits ou aux technologies de la biotechnologie, il deviendra de plus en plus important d'avoir en place des politiques et des procédures sur les droits de propriété intellectuelle aux niveaux national et institutionnel. Etant donné l'ampleur des programmes internationaux de collaboration qui sont introduits, des partenaires locaux solides sont nécessaires pour expédier l'adaptation des technologies et des produits qui sont mis au point à travers une recherche conjointe. Le manque d'innovations biotechnologiques ou leur diffusion limitée de la part des agriculteurs ont élargi l'écart technologique par rapport aux pays développés. La biotechnologie affectera même les villages les plus isolés de plusieurs manières telles que celles associées à la baisse de la production et des coûts des transactions. Il ne sera ni sage ni justifié pour les pays Africains de ne pas participer efficacement à cette révolution en vue de lutter pour gagner certains des avantages qui en sont attendus au lieu de l'indifférence de la politique actuelle.
Mots
clés: Biotechnologie, breveter, mondial, agriculture, génétiquement
modifiés (GM), trans-génique, prévention des risques
biotechnologiques, sécurité alimentaire
By the year 2025, four fifths of the expected global population of 8.5 billion will be living in developing countries. Currently, it is doubtful whether existing global resources and technologies will satisfy the demands of this growing population for food and other consumer commodities. The challenge therefore is how to meet these needs mainly by increasing production. To avoid damaging environmentally sensitive areas and hence ensure greater food insecurity, new methods need to be utilized to increase farm output on cultivated land. Increasingly biotechnology seems to be an important part of the solution.
Although global food production is sufficient to meet the needs of every citizen on earth, the per capita food production and availability remains lowest in Africa. While Western Europe's per capita food availability stands at some 3500 kilocalories/day and those of North America at 3600 kilocalories/day, in sub-Saharan Africa, food availability stands at only 2100 kilocalories per person per day, the lowest level of per capita food availability in the world. Cereal availability varies greatly from one country to another with developed countries having more than three times the poorer countries [1]. Inadequate means of production for the world's poorest peasant farmers who cannot meet their food requirements, and insufficient purchasing power of other poor rural and urban non-farmers are probably more crucial to food insecurity than technology. It is thus obvious that biotechnology is not a panacea in solving Africa's food crises.
Productive agriculture is a source of livelihood for most of Africa's people. According to 1998 World Bank figures [2], in 1996 agriculture accounted for 24% of sub-Saharan Africa's GDP and in 1990, 68% of employment. In 1999, for the third consecutive year, overall agricultural production rose by only 2.1%, remaining lower than the population growth rate. Crop production is estimated to have increased by 2.2%, while livestock production expanded by a modest 1.7%. In per capita terms, however, agricultural production continues to stagnate, with 2000 production levels being virtually identical to those attained in 1990 [3]. Agricultural development is therefore critical to the improvement in food security in Africa. Increases in incomes from a productive agriculture can raise food purchasing power and reduce pervasive poverty. Agrarian growth is also known to drive industrial development thus providing the rural poor with alternative sources of income as well as reducing pressure on land. Such economic growth will ultimately imply reduced food insecurity.
This paper
discusses agricultural biotechnology and its implications for Africa's efforts
towards food security. It explains TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights) in the context of biotechnology and examines the current status
of biotechnology in Africa. It raises issues related to the controversy
surrounding the subject and its challenges in the context of African countries.
Some existing collaborative biotechnology research programs in developing
countries are highlighted. The paper concludes by highlighting policy issues
that African countries need to pay attention to if they are to benefit from
the biotechnology.
ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN CROP IMPROVEMENT
Biotechnology
programs in the field of crop improvement are rapidly emerging in Kenya
and Zimbabwe, to address resistance to maize stem borer and drought tolerance.
Examples of the use of genetic engineering in Africa include Kenya's virus-resistant
transgenic sweet potato project (which is under development with Monsanto
Company of the United States), Egypt's transgenic potato, maize, faba bean
and tomato developments, and South Africa's new tobacco and cotton varieties
with resistance to herbicides. The relevance of genetic modification in
producing transgenic crop varieties with resistance to pesticides, insects,
and diseases cannot be ignored, given the prohibitive costs to farmers of
chemical inputs and yield losses [4].
CONTROVERSY
The controversial issues surrounding the application of genetic engineering technologies to food crops can be broadly categorized into food safety, environmental and ethical/economic issues. The ethical issues are largely related to cultural background and levels of public perception and awareness. According to the FAO Committee on Agriculture [5], biotechnology has attracted some controversy because some see it as "interfering with the workings of nature and creation" which might involve risk taking for commercial gain. Economic controversies relate to the implications of the commercialization of genetically modified germplasm. Will small-scale farmers or communities be perpetually dependent on the terminator technology products, and hence, reduced agricultural production? Will poor countries become increasingly dependent on developed countries for food? Progressive reduction of trade barriers through organizations such as the WTO are likely to make export of food from developed to developing countries become easier and more commonplace. Biotechnology may make this trade more profitable, thus creating or increasing the food dependency of developing countries on developed countries [6]. Subsidies given to developed country farmers result in even lower prices with farmers in developing countries being forced to absorb costs that are higher than the prices they can get for their commodities locally and internationally. This leads to them producing only for their limited domestic markets or for subsistence use, thus undermining their incomes.
Issues relating to food safety and the environment question whether biotechnology products such as transgenic plants or other genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe for consumers and the environment. In general, the controversy has also been characterized as pitting rich against poor, ethicists against pragmatists, and environmentalists against business opportunists. It has also been a battle between the scientifically informed versus the less informed; between those who understand the long ancestral lines of biotechnology, and those who believe that we are leaping blindly across an unknown genetic fault line. The latter maintain that although safety is paramount, biosafety concerns should not be confused with market protectionism [7].
Another emerging aspect of the debate is the impact of the substantial differences in perception of the risks and benefits associated with biotechnology. Neilsen has argued that farmers in North America and a few other countries such as Argentina, Mexico, and China are rapidly adopting genetically modified (GM) varieties, as they become available and attributes consumer acceptance of this development to the lower retail prices [8]. However, in Europe and, to some extent Japan, there is concern about the environmental impact of cultivation of GM crops and the safety of GM foods, separate production systems for GM crops and non-GM crops are emerging such as for maize and soybean. This points to the potential for a viable non-GM market alongside the GM varieties [9].
If African countries are to extensively develop agricultural biotechnology, they could target both GM-resistant and GM-indifferent markets. The GMO-free food market is likely to attract consumers who are willing to pay a premium price much like the situation in the organic food market. In this equation, countries that are net food importers can also benefit from lower world market prices assuming their consumers are not averse to GMOs.
Opportunities exist for African countries to strategically utilize ethical considerations to their benefit. African policymakers and stakeholders need to take up the challenge and have their views incorporated. The debate about biotechnology should not be necessarily whether or not the continent needs biotechnology, but how biotechnology can be promoted, supported and applied in safe and sustainable ways that contribute to improved agriculture and livelihoods. Biotechnology can help fight the widespread poverty, hunger and destitution.
The issue of biosafety remains a contentious one. At the international level, potential environmental hazards from new products of biotechnology have raised concerns that companies may use African and other developing countries as "test sites" for their products. Some of the potential environmental risks concern plant pests, where gene escape from GMOs could result in increased weediness in sexually compatible wild species. The inclusion of novel genes for herbicide resistance in plants may increase the occurrence of weeds with resistance to certain agrochemicals. Another worry about GMOs is the possible inadvertent production of toxins and allergens. This situation places African countries in a precarious position and in need of assistance for designing appropriate legislation and setting up regulatory bodies for all aspects of biosafety. National legislation must reflect national positions and be consistent with international instruments [10].
Many biotechnology products are under some form of protection in the West. Following a series of negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), an Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) was finally reached in 1994 at the Uruguay Round. The AoA sought to address four broad categories of issues including domestic support to agriculture, increased market access, request for special and preferential treatment such as lower commitment obligations and longer transitional periods to implement WTO Agreements.
Under the WTO agreements, TRIPS require protection of pharmaceuticals and genes, exclusion of living plants and animals for patentability, and breeders' rights. Although TRIPS allow countries some flexibility in the precise form and the extent of protection, it nevertheless promotes the fundamental idea of extending Intellectual Property Rights to agricultural genetic resources [11]. The Plant Variety Protection (PVP) also referred to as Plant Breeders' Rights (PBRs) allows one to protect new varieties of sexually reproducing plant varieties for a term of 20 years (25 for tree crops). It is considered a sui generis system, in other words, a system of rights designed to fit a particular context and need that is a unique alternative to standard IP protection. Its advantages over plant patents include lower cost, simple application and fewer requirements for similar protection. Generally PVP is sought for plant or varieties that have been developed through traditional breeding rather than for transformed plants [12].
Since most biotechnology research is conducted in industrialized countries, very often by private companies, developing countries may have to pay to use a new procedure or product. African countries generally have weak national scientific infrastructure and capacity to innovate and patent new materials and enforce biosafety requirements. Because IPRs are central to the growth of the biotechnology industry, lack of patent protection can limit access to the results of biotechnology originating elsewhere in an environment where the economies lack the capacity to either purchase or participate in developing the technology. An agreement for negotiating for a favorable position and partnering would be preferable.
In some quarters, IPRs are viewed as having had a negative effect on agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries because they interfere with the traditional system whereby potentially useful technologies could simply be transferred from developed to developing countries [13]. Whereas the "green revolution" was made possible by publicly-funded agricultural research, current concerns are that public sector institutes are hindered from playing a leading role in the "biotechnology revolution" because of IPRs. This is illustrated by the common concern that biotechnology companies in developed countries are patenting genetic resources of developing countries to develop new products in food and agriculture. African countries must therefore, explore strategies to alleviate the negative impacts of IPRs on food and agriculture.
The area of
Intellectual Property is controversial and complex. Within the parameters
of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and TRIPS, African countries
have international commitments that they will have to meet. Access to biotechnology
products increasingly requires that countries have IP policies and procedures
both nationally and institutionally. In addition to taking into account
national interests such as farmers' rights and compensation to indigenous
people, these policies have to incorporate ways to promote collaboration
and private sector investment while securing the greater public good.
DONOR-FUNDED
BIOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES
International collaboration is already taking place through donor-funded initiatives. While the application of biotechnology in industrialized countries is dominated by the private sector and large international companies often launch new products, research is still predominantly carried out by the public sector in developing countries. A wide range of international collaborative opportunities is available for agricultural research organizations in developing countries. Such organizations plan or implement research programs in agricultural biotechnology. Since around 1985 onwards, a number of international initiatives that provide an important source of information or assistance in agricultural biotechnology have been established.
According to
Komen [14], seven out of twenty-eight or so worldwide initiatives were on-going
in Africa as of 1997. Of these, five were crop-oriented, one on livestock
and one in both crop and livestock research. The host institutions involved
in crop biotechnology programs included the following:
1. Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity, ABSP (Michigan
State University, USA),
2. Feathery Mottle Virus Resistant Sweet Potato for African Farmers (Agency
for International Development, USA),
3. IIRSDA - Plant Biotechnology Program (Institut international de recherche
scientifique pour le dévelopment en Afrique, Côte d'Ivoire),
4. IITA - Biotechnology Research Unit (International Institute for Tropical
Agriculture, Nigeria,)
5. Research on the Date Palm and the Arid Land Farming Systems (Estacion
Phoenix, Spain).
The Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program - Animal Health
Component (Washington State University, USA) - was the only livestock biotechnology
program exclusively for Africa, while crop/livestock programs were carried
out by ICIPE - Biotechnology Research Unit (International Centre of Insect
Physiology and Ecology, Kenya). In addition, several networks were involved
in the initiatives:
1. African Biosciences Network - Sub-Network for Biotechnology, ABN-BIOTECHNET
(University of Nigeria, Nigeria),
2. DGIS Special Program Biotechnology and Development Cooperation (Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands),
3. FAO/AGP Programs on Plant Biotechnology (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Italy).
Cereals such as rice, maize and sorghum, are major research crops. Root crops (potato, cassava, yam, sweet potato) and tropical perennials came second. The projects in crop biotechnology tended to be at the advanced end of the research spectrum with around 30% in crop transformation, 29% in molecular markers and 31% in cell biology (micropropagation, regeneration). The crop biotechnology programs are generally aimed at improved tropical food crop production with reduced levels of pesticides, a contrast to "mainstream" research in agricultural biotechnology, which emphasizes temperate crops and mostly aims at developing herbicide-tolerant crops.
Livestock research programs concentrate on the development of new vaccines and diagnostics for tropical livestock diseases such as trypanosomiasis, tick-borne diseases (e.g., theileriosis and cowdriosis), rinderpest, and foot-and-mouth disease. The major share of the livestock effort relate to cattle, although one program exclusively concentrated on small ruminants (sheep and goats). The main player in livestock biotechnology is the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), with research programs for trypanosomiasis and tick-borne diseases. Among the CGIAR centers, ILRI was one of the first to develop biotechnology-based research and it invests heavily in animal biotechnology [15].
In line with their research projects, all crop and animal research initiatives have developed a strong component for human resource development. Training activities are concentrated at the post-doctoral and doctoral levels. In addition to the training opportunities provided through the crop and animal research programs, the UNESCO Biotechnology Action Council is one donor-agency program that considerably promotes human resource development. Most international research programs also provide advice and training on policy and management aspects of agricultural biotechnology. Biosafety and intellectual property rights are priority topics.
Such partnerships as those described above are important for immediate feedback and fine-tuning of technologies. Javier concedes that the shift of agricultural research focus from commodity improvements to resource management and from favorable to unfavorable areas implies greater importance in partnerships with farmers [16]. Farmers possess indigenous knowledge that has remained relatively untapped and can play a crucial role in developing technologies for crop management in the favorable environments, as well as helping match genotypes to specific environmental niches in the unfavorable environments. In addition, closer linkages with advanced basic science institutions are required to provide the knowledge base for strategic and applied research. Collaboration with the private sector that will ensure more equitable access to agricultural technologies are equally important as partnerships with farmers and NGOs. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) is key in this regard as its purpose is to act as an honest broker in the transfer of biotechnologies with application to food systems [17]. It aims at developing institutional mechanisms to facilitate sharing and transfer of agricultural applications in biotechnology from the developed countries, for the benefit of developing countries. African researchers and policy makers will need to tap into such institutions to ensure that their countries reap full benefits from biotechnology research.
Although the
specific efforts involving Kenyan researchers have not been many, they are
evidence of the benefits of collaboration. Such efforts include the genetically
engineered, virus-resistant sweet potato (mentioned elsewhere in this paper),
which promises to increase yields in Kenya by up to 60 percent. Another
effort has been in developing pathogen-free banana plants with technology
that has been developed through collaboration involving the Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute (KARI), the Rockefeller Foundation, ISAAA, the South
African Institute for Tropical and Sub-Tropical Crops (ITSC), the Canadian
International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and two tissue culture
companies. The banana plant promises great benefits to small-scale banana
producers in Kenya. The Kenyan project participants: Florence Wambugu, Margaret
Karembu, Michael Njuguna, and Samuel Wakhusama Wanyangu were recipients
of the First Global Development Awards presented in the Tokyo Second Annual
Global Development Network Conference in December, 2000. Florence Wambugu
and John Wafula have also been involved in research on the Maize Streak
Virus Disease. Another Kenyan researcher Fred Kanampiu, has been involved
in researching on the destructive parasitic weed Striga at the Mexico-based
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT).
BROADENING
THE RESEARCH AGENDA
Certain mind-boggling
issues have to be addressed if African countries can reduce the ever widening
biotechnological gap with other countries and enhance competitiveness. What
should the optimum amount of investment in biotechnology in any country
be and in which area? What role should private investment play in biotechnology?
How much should countries be prepared to pay for the burden/costs of conserving
and utilizing the principal raw materials for biotechnology? How does biotechnology
development impact on rural poverty? What policies, regulations and procedures
should be in place to ensure biosafety? In international trade, what conditions
govern access to and utilization of biotechnology raw materials/products
and how can economically efficient and equitable exchange mechanisms be
institutionalized between the owners and the users of the biodiversity?
How can legislation on biotechnology be strengthened? How does globalization
and liberalization affect biotechnology? What is the minimum amount of resources
required to build a critical mass for the biotechnology to flourish? Is
there capacity to maintain a degree of self-reliance in analyzing the opportunities
and challenges brought about by biotechnology?
Africa currently faces a set of stiffer barriers in penetrating meaningfully into the biotechnology industry in comparison to the diffusion of the green revolution. In addition to the weak national scientific infrastructure, many countries face constraints such as budget stringency under structural adjustment and liberalization, accompanied by stagnating investments by the public and private sector research which have increased the biotechnological gap. Lastly, mainly due to uncertainty of the future donor support, international research organizations have hesitated to assist Africa in the area of biotechnology [19].
Many countries are not in a position to catalogue the natural resources of biomaterials under their sovereign possession as well as have adequate legislation in the area of biotechnology. Very few of their biomaterials have been characterized and evaluated, especially for commercial exploitation. Many countries lack the entrepreneurial spirit and capacity to maintain a degree of self-reliance in exploiting opportunities for international trade in biotechnology. There are now about 1,500 biotechnology firms in the US. Britain has 600 biotechnology firms, a quarter of which are publicly quoted in the European Union forums and documents. Other countries with over 100 biotech firms include Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, and most of the Scandinavian countries.
The debate on biotechnology is tainted with mystery and persistent negative literature. The use of biotechnology is debated mainly along ethical lines. There is a rather high official policy resistance to discuss biotechnology ideas. In many African countries, policy and research efforts are considerably donor-driven. There is need for more studies to elaborate the various economic benefits or impacts of biotechnology [20]. Biotechnology has potential for revolutionizing the livestock sector but many governments have not initiated tangible research in either embryo transfer or recombinant DNA for livestock disease/pest vaccines.
Given that the incidence of poverty has increased in many countries, investing in food and particularly cereal and livestock biotechnology is likely to have the maximum impact on the welfare of the poor. One reason why Africa missed the green revolution is because it primarily benefited areas with adequate moisture or irrigation, while large areas of limited rainfall received little or no benefit. GMOs could benefit such areas by increasing yields for drier areas, in addition to creating plants that are resistant to pests or diseases. The latter possibility has been exemplified by a virus resistant sweet potato being developed in Kenya. The significance of this effort is that much of the basic work was done by Monsanto (a private firm) which has made its work available without charge [21]. It is anticipated that the GMO sweet potato will reduce the costs of production by eliminating the use of some chemicals, and would increase yields by 12 to 25% [22]. With widespread adoption, the potential for helping the poorest farmers in developing countries is substantial.
Among the cereals, maize has received the highest attention from private researchers because of its perceived potential for widespread commercialization as hybrid seeds are only used once. Indeed, by 1998, the value of global market in bio-engineered crops stood at US$ 164 billion with maize accounting for 30%. Biotechnology research in cereals addresses several different issues. Some of the research aims to reduce production costs by incorporating characteristics that eliminate the need for pesticides or other external inputs. One famous example is the variety containing genes that code for the toxin produced by Bacillius thuringienesis (Bt), an insect bacterial disease, which eliminates the need for spraying against the pests. Other research in cereal biotechnologies targets post-harvest losses attributed to pests and diseases.
Another front is that of enhancing the potential to grow cereals under hostile conditions such as drought and/or salty and toxic soils. Yet another front involves developing yield-enhancing biotechnologies that can enhance the capacity of plants to absorb more photosynthetic energy or convert large portions of that energy into grains rather than stem or leaf, the essence of the green revolution. The possible combinations are many and it is for the public sector to invest more in biotechnology in order to improve food security.
Regarding the use of biotechnology in medicinal plants, the 'so-called' bio-prospecting for the pharmaceutical industry, is another lucrative area with an annual global turnover estimated at US$ 250,000 million. However, most of the medicinal plants found in Africa have been patented abroad without local knowledge and collaboration. For instance, a Kenyan tree (Pyrunus African tree, locally known as Muiri) is used to make extracts for prostrate cancer treatment and is patented in France. This is a fate suffered by numerous other African medicinal plants extracted. Many African communities have a rich heritage of indigenous knowledge of diagnostic and therapeutic practices relating to medicinal plants that have not been conserved, studied, bio-assessed and incorporated in the medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical industry. It is hoped lucrative commercial value will be realized if such biotechnological resources can be catalogued and protected. As a policy guide, an agreement to jointly award collaborating researchers with the patent should be a pre-condition to participate in any collaborative research [23].
Biotechnology
will unquestionably generate employment and profits as well as pose certain
threats. Its impacts on economic development are likely to be considerable.
In efforts to free themselves from dependence on resources imported from
developing countries, many developed countries have invented substitutes
for most commodities produced in developing countries. According to a recent
study, any substance of plant origin with a market value exceeding $80 per
gram can be profitably produced by cell or tissue culture. This applies
to many raw pharmaceutical products, aromatic compounds/flavors, condiments/spices,
fragrances and sweeteners. The case of enzymatic synthesis of pyrethrins
that nearly killed the Kenya pyrethrum industry in the early 70s is a documented
consequence of biotechnological innovations. Nonetheless, it is probable
that no one will be a net loser in the biotechnology industry, either as
a producer or consumer (or both). Reaping the legitimate portion of the
global benefits will largely depend on the technical policy options individual
countries adopt.
Biotechnology will perhaps affect even the most isolated villages on the African continent. It may be neither wise nor justified for Africans not to pursue effective participation in this revolution. African nations must fight to gain some of its expected advantages with due recognition of related dangers or risks. Developing policies that encourage investment, education, collaboration, and technology access will promote technology transfer and access to biotechnology products that can improve livelihoods.
Africa's policy makers need to make decisions concerning biotechnology that can adequately respond to and answer the attendant and fundamental biotech and policy questions. Priority setting in agricultural research will be required to take into account the two basics of economic and political objectives. The economic rationale should ensure optimal resource allocation and planning and capacity building for research. The political objectives should include consensus building among the different actors such as governments, researchers, farmers and consumers.
The approaches to be taken must also be considered. For instance, how participatory is the whole process going to be?. Project funding has also to be secured; ideally there should be as much public and private sector funding as possible. While priority setting could help ensure that research projects are more demand-driven rather than donor-driven, there is still a danger of donors having too much power over the whole process since they are the dominant source of funding. There is also the potential danger of the projects stalling or being abandoned altogether should the donors withdraw and funding ceases. Such risks against collaborative efforts need to be evaluated.
Ideally national
programs need to ensure that biotechnology benefits all sectors, including
resource-poor rural populations, particularly in marginal areas where productivity
increases will be more difficult to achieve. This implies the need to set
priorities that will help biotechnology expertise complement existing technologies
and be output-driven. Since biotechnology research is often more expensive
than conventional research, it should be used only to solve specific problems
where it has comparative advantage. With reduced funding for research in
agriculture, and increasingly privatized research, the consequent danger
is that biotechnology could be aimed mainly at resource-rich farmers. In
addition to technical considerations, priority setting should take into
account national development policies, private sector interests and market
possibilities. Different stakeholders should be involved in the formulation
of national biotechnology strategies, policies and plans.
1.
FAO. Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food
security in developing countries. In: Electronic Forum on Biotechnology
in Food and Agriculture, Nov.-Dec. 2000. [Cited 20 June 2002] http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp?lang=en
2. World Bank. World Development Indicators 1998. IBRD, Washington, D.C.
1998.
3. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture, 2001. [cited 10 May, 2002] http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9800e/x9800e00.htm
4. Ndiritu CG Kenya: Biotechnology in Africa: why the controversy? In: Persley
GJ and Lantin MM (Eds) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, an International
Conference on Biotechnology, 1999. [cited 10 May 2002]. Portable Document
Format. http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/Ndiritu.pdf
5. FAO. Biotechnology in agriculture Report to the FAO Committee on Agriculture
(COAG), Rome, January 1999. [cited 10 May 2002]. (Agric. 21 Spotlight).
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp1.htm
6. FAO. Ref. 1.
7. Ojani W GMOs What is Kenya's stand? Daily Nation. January 22, 2001. [cited
10 May 2002]. http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/22012001/News/News1.html
8. Neilsen CP, Robinson S and K Thierfelder Genetic engineering and trade:
panacea or dilemma for developing countries. World Dev. 2001; 29:1307-1324.
9. Neilson CP Ref. 8.
10. FAO. Ref. 5.
11. FAO. Ref. 5.
12. Ives CL and F Wambugu Agricultural biotechnology: current and future
trends and implications for Africa. Paper presented at the Agricultural
Transformation Workshop, June 1999, Nairobi [cited 10 May 2002]. Portable
Document Format. http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/ag_transformation/atw_wambaugu.pdf
13. FAO. Ref. 1.
14. Komen J International initiatives in agri-food biotechnology. Chapter
prepared for the volume "Biotechnology Worldwide". 1997. Forthcoming.
[cited 10 May 2002]. International Initiatives in Agricultural Biotechnology
(ISNAR) Biotechnology Service - Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives.
http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/ibs/init.htm
15. Komen J Ref. 10.
16. Javier EQ Widening circles of research collaboration for greater food
security. In: Bonte-Friedheim, Christian and Kathleen Sheridan (eds.). The
Globalization of science: the place of agricultural research. New, expanded
ed. 1997. [Cited 20 June 2002]. http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/publications/books/Globalization.htm
17. Javier EQ Ref. 16.
18. Komen J Ref. 10.
19. Omiti J Why Kenya Must Adopt Biotechnological Science, A Guest Column
commentary, Financial Standard (Page FS 10), E. A. Standard, 19th March
2002.
20. Omiti J, Kamau M and M Waithaka Constraints in Institutionalizing Impact
Assessment in Kenya, Occasional Paper No. 8/2001, Institute of Policy Analysis
and Research (IPAR). Downtown Printing Works, Nairobi, 2001.
21. Quaim MA A prospective evaluation of biotechnology in semi-subsistence
agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2001; 25:165-176.
22. Johnson D Biotechnology issues for developing economies. EJB Elec. J.
Biotech. [online]. April 2002; 15, [Cited 10 May 2002]. http://www.ejb.org/content/vol5/issue1/issues/01/index.html#3
23. Omiti J Ref. 14.
(1)Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), Nairobi - Kenya
(2)Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Nairobi - Kenya
Famine continues to threaten the livelihoods of many sub-Saharan Africans. Presently, six countries of southern Africa: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, are threatened by famine due to low output in the staple crop maize. Policy lessons learned from studies conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) on famine mitigation efforts in sub-Saharan Africa can be instructive in developing measures to remove the threat. Famine mitigation must be seen in terms of three goals or phases: immediate relief, recovery and short-term development. This paper presents policy options for each of these phases, including food aid, labor-intensive employment programs, public-private partnerships, agricultural input transfers and institution building. Interventions must be combined and sequenced for an overall strategy to be effective. Certain broader goals, such as governance, are also essential to consider for long-term famine prevention and food security. The paper examines a range of issues: 1) the causes of famines, the time frame for various policy measures and the criteria for choosing interventions, (2) interventions for immediate relief, (3) measures to help affected households recover from famine, (4) the development of technological, policy and institutional foundations for stepping out of famine and attaining food security, (5) how interventions should be combined and sequenced, and (6) several overarching issues that should be considered for famine mitigation and prevention.
Keywords:
famine, southern Africa
In spite of development efforts, famine continues to threaten the livelihoods of many sub-Saharan Africans. Presently, people in six countries of southern Africa: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, are either experiencing or under the threat of famine due to production shortfalls and decreased planting in the staple crop, maize. Approximately 10 million people in the region are in danger and several thousands, it is believed, have already died. The possibility of the toll increasing remains [1,2].
Of the six countries, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe have been the most seriously affected. Malawi faces a severe food shortage that has affected seventy-five percent of its population. This year, after harvest, supply in Malawi is expected to fall short of meeting demand by approximately 400,000 metric tonnes [2]. In Zambia, the supply shortfall will be by more than half a million metric tonnes. However, the production deficit is most serious for Zimbabwe, where this year there will be a shortfall of seventy nine percent of a normal 1.5 million metric tonnes of maize harvested. [2,3]. The gap between supply and demand in Zimbabwe will be roughly one-million metric tonnes [3]. The crisis is not quite as severe for the other three countries, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland. In Mozambique, only certain areas have been affected, and in the other two countries food shortages are moderate-to-serious. For the region as a whole, about 4 million metric tonnes will have to be imported to meet consumption needs this year [2]. In the past, shortfalls could be filled with imports from South Africa. However, this year South Africa too has experienced lower-than-normal output. As a result, the prices for maize in the region have been extremely high and beyond the reach of the poor. The famine has not only caused suffering for millions in the present, but also placed the achievement of future food security in jeopardy through the toll it will take on social and human capital, and financial resources [4].
This paper aims to present the policy lessons that have been learned from efforts to address past famines over the last twenty years in sub-Saharan Africa, and apply them to the present situation in the sub-region. The lessons are based largely on research that the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) conducted during the 1980s and 1990s on famine and other issues in sub-Saharan Africa [4].
Based on research conducted on famine [5], it is now understood that the more immediate causes of famines in general have been environmental harzards, such as drought, or armed conflict. Drought and flooding have been the proximate causes of the crisis in southern Africa. However, what makes countries vulnerable to famine are chronic and widespread poverty, and deficient agricultural and development policies. Environmental hazards and wars only bring collapse to systems that are already weak due largely to inadequate governance [6]. This has certainly been true for the southern African countries, where the majority of the rural population remains very poor. In Zimbabwe, a country that normally exports maize to others in the region, a lack of adequate governance led to the low planting of maize, and inability to harvest what had been planted. Where governments once had the capacity to prevent famines, this capacity has not been maintained. In 1991-92, unlike in the present, some of the southern African countries were able to avoid an impending famine in the region through institutional innovation and collaboration. Clearly, to avert famines in the future, economic, political and human resources must be directed at building long-term development and famine-prevention policies.
In
formulating policies to reduce the threat of famine, it is important
to think in terms of three-time horizons or goals: immediate relief,
recovery and short-term development. Famine mitigation interventions
lie on a spectrum of immediate relief to short-term development
[5,7]. The goal of a mitigation strategy should be to first begin
at the immediate relief end of the spectrum. Following this, the
objective should be to move towards the other end of the spectrum
by adopting policies for recovery and short-term development. The
possible programs should be seen as lying on a spectrum because
measures taken in one phase, for example recovery, if designed properly,
can contribute to the achievement of goals in the later phases,
short- and long-term development, and famine prevention. In famine
mitigation it is important to understand that no one program will
be sufficient to mitigate famine. Therefore, along with the issue
of time horizon, the question of how interventions should be combined
and sequenced has to be considered [5].
IMMEDIATE
RELIEF: GETTING FOOD TO THE HUNGRY
During the initial crisis stage of a famine, the goal should be to make food available to those suffering most in as rapid a manner as possible. This is generally done through the distribution of free food aid with the assistance of relief organizations. When a famine is already under way, there are in reality few other options available. Relief could be provided even sooner if a country has buffer grain stocks that it can release to help keep prices affordable. The objective of immediate relief is to minimize the various effects of famine, which include dislocation and destitution in addition to mortality. Efforts should be made to ensure that areas that are difficult to access due to distance or poor infrastructure receive disbursements of the same quantity and as regularly as do other regions. Preparations should be made for the possibility that some areas will require food aid for a long period of time [5]. In fact, in drought-prone areas, populations may require free food aid for several years. In Ethiopia, between 1984 and 1992, many households obtained food aid for a number of years [7].
It is imperative in food aid distribution that food is delivered to people where they live. This is vital for several reasons. The weakness that extreme hunger causes can prevent, and has prevented, significant numbers of people from traveling to central distribution sites to obtain food. Other reasons for making food aid accessible to people where they live is the importance of maintaining household stability necessary for recovery and future development, and safeguarding the population's health. The formation of food camps adversely affects household stability by uprooting people and making them vulnerable to disease. In fact, one of the main problems with camps is the spread of diseases due to overcrowding and poor sanitation. Cholera is one of the main diseases that arise. Eighty-thousand Rwandans during the 1994 crisis died in camps due mainly to cholera and dysentery, and a large number of people in southern Africa are already succumbing to this and other diseases. In camps especially, weak management and ineffective operation can lead to the neediest not being assisted. Food camps, therefore, need to be avoided as much as possible. However, when roads do not exist, and people have already come to central locations, there will be little choice for project administrators on what they can do [5,7].
Targeting the most adversely affected areas first is essential. In many cases, only certain regions of a country experience a famine, or experience it more severely than do others, due to localized environmental calamities, higher pre-famine levels of hunger and malnutrition or other factors [5]. In some of the southern African countries, the food shortages are occurring in only certain areas. In Lesotho, poverty and malnutrition are particularly pronounced in the mountainous and possibly difficult-to-access areas. In Mozambique, the regions experiencing food shortage are in the south and center. In Zimbabwe, the south, west and extreme north are the areas most affected [5]. It is vital to target these areas first with the limited resources available. In one region of Sudan, during the country's famine in the 1980s, criteria used to rank districts for targeting were: crop production record, emigration numbers, nutritional anthropometric measures, and reported mortality rates. In fact, if food shortages are severe in only certain areas, a national famine mitigation strategy can be more effective if it targets these areas with food aid, and addresses the threat of hunger in other areas through other programs [5].
Within targeted and non-targeted areas, assistance should be aimed at the neediest households. Within same areas, are usually differences between households in terms of wealth, household composition, coping capacity and size. While all households in an area may require assistance for a time, leading aid administrators to distribute food aid evenly, efforts must be made to ensure that the poorest households receive what they need to survive. In one food aid program in Sudan, the differences between households in terms of needs were unfortunately not recognized.
All households received equal shares of aid. Large families and those that have no other coping mechanism other than food thus suffered. Providing food based on absolute rather than relative poverty levels can lead to high costs, insufficient quantities per household and needs of most disadvantaged not being met [5].
To ensure that the most disadvantaged households are targeted, standardized and formal guidelines for distribution should be employed. Often, discrimination by gender, age, status and ethnicity exists in food aid distribution, whether in camps or communities, and in other famine recovery programs. Households that are headed by either women or the elderly are of low status, or of a minority ethnic group are frequently poorer to begin with. Relying on informal means, such as the judgments of village leaders or project administrators, and on criteria that vary from one area to another, might make the situation only worse for them. Procedures for targeting must be established and followed, or else the most disadvantaged households could go without the aid they need and resources will be used inefficiently [5,7].
Because
of the threat that prolonged food shortages pose to human health,
investments in health need to be expanded or maintained during the
relief and recovery stages. A large number of the deaths that occur
during famine periods are actually due to disease and not starvation.
This is true outside of food camps as well. Undernutrition and malnutrition
make people more susceptible to diseases and existing health services
are generally unable to take on the added burden since they just
are not prepared. It is, therefore, imperative that during famine
and relief periods, public investments in health services are increased
or maintained. Measures will accordingly need to be taken to maintain
sanitation systems and safeguard water quality. In fact, food security
policies have a limited impact on reducing health risks unless they
are integrated with effective nutrition, health and child-care interventions
[7].
To determine what kinds of relief and recovery interventions will be needed across a country, an assessment of the different areas will be needed regarding their vulnerability to famine [8]. Indicators and information that are essential to have for households in each district include: levels of food intake, average income level and income range, food sources, coping capacities, links to markets, level of asset holdings and water scarcity. This information should also be made available at the district level for planning local interventions. Other information that is crucial to generate at this level are the number and concentrations of households headed by females or the elderly, and those with members suffering from AIDS.
One of the most effective and practised programs for bringing a population out of famine is the labor-intensive employment scheme. These can be implemented once areas come out of the crisis phase, or in areas where the hunger problem is not severe. Labor-intensive employment programs are generally public initiatives, in the form of public works projects designed to assist the poor. They provide food or cash wages in exchange for labor in a cost-effective manner. These programs provide three benefits: short-term income, risk insurance where public works schemes provide employment guarantees, and long-term direct and indirect effects from asset creation. These programs create assets by developing or improving public goods, such as infrastructure and the natural resource base. Infrastructure development would enable food transport and market integration, while natural resource conservation would enhance productivity. Which of the three benefits a program should focus upon will depend on the health of the participating households as they emerge from severe hunger, their coping capacities, and the level of food shortages and hence food prices [4, 5].
When food supply is still low, and prices are thus high, it is preferable for public works programs to make payments in the form of food. The poor may not be able to afford sufficient food even if imports are made available. Hence the basic cash wages that these programs could offer would not be enough for the recipients to afford staple foods. Food-for-work schemes would be an appropriate intervention for certain regions within the southern African countries, where prices are currently very high but extreme shortages at the household level do not yet exist. Poor infrastructure, long distances to markets and the general lack of development of private markets in the region are additional reasons why payment should be made in food rather than cash. In regions where food prices are within the reach of households, but lack of income prevents purchase, wages in cash can be given. The benefit of cash-for-work schemes is that they are less expensive in administrative terms. This solution would be appropriate for urban areas where food access exists, but incomes have declined and thus the food is unaffordable [4, 5]. Zambia, for example, has experienced a decline in its industrial and public sectors, and thus the wages of urban dwellers are likely to be low [5]. Cash-for-work projects can also be successful in rural areas where food markets function well [5].
If a public works program is already in existence it should be expanded for famine recovery. Zimbabwe has had experience with public food-for-work employment programs during the drought period of 1981-82. Employment continued until 1987 to ensure that households could sustain themselves. The ability of the country to prevent a famine in 1991 when food shortages existed has been attributed to the scheme. Furthermore, more people worked in the scheme than the number that received free food. Where the food need was rather severe, food was distributed first, and labor procured later as payment. However, the program was able to meet less than two-thirds of the officially recognized need, as expansion in scale during the period affected by drought was small and difficult to achieve. A lack of funding was the principal obstacle [5]. Labor-intensive employment schemes, however, require a good level of administrative capacity if they are to contribute effectively to a nation's recovery efforts. If such capacity is not yet present, other schemes, such as private employment projects discussed below may be more suitable. In such situations, food aid may have to play a larger role in mitigating famine.
Like food aid, public works schemes should be targeted at poor households. The poor would most likely depend more on such schemes to cope with the famine. Such programs can succeed in reaching the poor, and transferring more benefits to them more than to the non-poor, if wages are set low or the food supplied is limited. Measures that could be used to distribute the benefits across poor households are either a quota system based on sex, or limiting the number of participants per household. However, limiting the number of participants during a famine to the "needy" can be difficult. As with food aid distribution, standardized and formal criteria should be employed to target those suffering most. Adjustments in the wage setting over time can also improve targeting and efficiency [4, 5].
However, as much as public works schemes can put a country on a path to development and out of famine, it is important to note that these programs only reach households which have is an adult who is able to work. Many households, even when a famine is not occurring, do not have such a member and are frequently destitute. These households are often headed by women or the elderly, or have working-age adult(s) with AIDS. These households do not benefit from public works schemes. To ensure that these households, which are unable to participate have their food needs met, supplementary programs will be required. However, in many poor rural areas, it is older women with children who participate in public works programs [5]. There will also be a need to adapt relief and short-term development strategies to the situation AIDS has created. A failure to plan policies for AIDS-affected and other destitute households will only lead to a significant decline in human and social capital in the future resources necessary for long-term development. Other programs such as free food aid will have to accompany public works schemes so that destitute households are able to survive.
Labor-intensive employment projects could be conducted by the private sector as well. Larger agents in the private sector might be encouraged to implement employment programs for the poor. These private actors would be from the commercial agricultural sector. During periods when food prices are high and farm incomes decline due to drought or floods, the government could provide large farmers with incentives to temporarily employ poor rural households. In Malawi, these large farmers would be in the estate sector involved in tobacco production. In Zambia and Zimbabwe, they would be in the commercial farming sector. Between May and September, large farms could provide non-farm employment, and from September to March during the growing season, they could provide agricultural work. If food prices are high, these private agents could facilitate food availability to poor households by purchasing staple grains from the public sector and providing food for work.
In addition to employment schemes, partnerships between the public and private sectors could be developed to make food more available. Taking the first steps out of famine requires government involvement and cannot be left to the market alone. However, policies that encourage greater private sector participation in food supply and distribution could help alleviate local food shortages. Although transport infrastructure between the regions in each of the larger southern African countries is generally inadequate, thus preventing food supply from food-surplus to food-deficit regions, the greater availability of food within regions and the reduction in prices could be achieved through increasing private sector participation which currently is fairly low. Necessary for involving the private sector will be the development of an information system on prices and markets. A specific proposal suggested here is for government food marketing systems, such as Malawi's ADMARC, to create an arrangement with private sellers whereby the latter supply government-purchased grain in areas not served by the public system. The development of the private sector in food distribution and partnership between this sector and the government would also be a step towards preventing famines and ensuring food security in the long run.
Labor-intensive
employment programs and increased food availability through private
sector involvement could help significantly to ease a country out
of famine, and at the same time lay some of the important groundwork
for food security in the long-term. Yet in an overall famine mitigation
strategy, these programs should be regarded as intermediate steps.
On the spectrum of interventions, what are required after some stability
has been achieved are short-term agricultural development measures.
Some of the main areas in which measures should be taken are technology,
macro-level policy and institutions. Only through short-term development
policies which also bring long-term benefits can the present threat
of severe hunger be eliminated.
SHORT-TERM
DEVELOPMENT: BUILDING FOUNDATIONS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY, POLICY AND
INSTITUTIONS
What has been responsible in large part for the vulnerability of the southern African countries to food shortages and famines is low agricultural productivity. Much of the problem of low crop-output in Africa stems from soil degradation and the low application of fertilizer [5]. In fact, if measures are not taken to increase maize production in the region, it is estimated that in Malawi there will be a shortfall of 600,000 metric tonnes next year on a projected yield of 1.4 million metric tonnes. It is expected that the gaps between supply and demand in the other countries will also either increase or remain the same next year unless steps are taken to address the underlying problems [2]. To rapidly boost production, the governments of the region could distribute free "starter packs" of seed, legume and fertilizer to all farmers, as was done in Malawi in 1998-99. The starter-pack program was responsible to a large degree for the maize harvest bounty the country experienced in the following year. Malawian small farmers could benefit significantly from the expansion of their country's currently limited program. Small farmers in Zimbabwe and Zambia, who have been lacking improved seed and fertilizer [5], could gain as well if their respective countries launched a similar program. The countries of the region periodically experience drought, but otherwise are able to grow crops in normal times. Preparing to obtain the maximum returns possible from the next agricultural season, the prospects for which appear to be reasonable at this point, is therefore crucial. This step should hence be regarded not only as a long-term mitigation measure, but also as one for short- and long-term development: achieving food security and preventing famines will depend on agricultural technology transfers now and in subsequent years.
Technology transfers, especially during famine recovery periods, must be appropriate to the time of agricultural season, agro-ecological conditions, existing farming practices and household knowledge, skills and labor available in order for them to be successful. These were the conclusions generated from IFPRI's studies in Ethiopia. Technology or asset transfers could be unproductive if they are made when the planting or harvest season has passed, or is already underway.Transfer schemes should also be designed to meet unforeseen conditions and be flexible. For example, a seed distribution scheme in Ethiopia was only moderately successful because dry spells occurred during the rainy season, after farmers had already planted all their seeds. Had seed been distributed in installments, or available after the rains resumed, the scheme could have ensured that farmers obtained good yields [7]. New technologies or assets should be easy to use or require little training and need little maintenance. This is especially vital if they are provided during the more difficult periods of a famine.
Accompanying agricultural technology transfers, policies at the macrolevel that encourage farmers, particularly smaller ones, to produce staple food crops in the next and future seasons are needed. If small farmers believe that growing staple food crops for the coming year will be risky and that commercial crops will bring higher incomes, they may choose not to plant staple crops in a particular season. If this occurs, food shortages will likely continue in the following year and the need for food aid will remain. The appropriate macro-level policies should, therefore be implemented, which provide an incentive for small farmers to grow staple crops but at the same time are cost-effective for the public sector.
The third component for short-term agricultural development consists of institution-building in the private and public sectors. Indeed, measures in this area are required to improve the access of farmers to new technologies and assets, and to help them maximize the use of these new tools. Regarding the private sector, the participation of private agents in the trade and retail marketing of agricultural inputs should be fostered. Building the institution of the private market would help meet the demand of small farmers for inputs, reduce the administrative responsibility of the public sector in input supply, and create the basis for long-term agricultural development.
With
regard to the public sector, the governments should design institutions
that make formal credit affordable and accessible to the rural poor,
where informal and inexpensive borrowing does not exist, and allow
informal and affordable credit lending to occur where it does take
place. The informal credit system that had existed in Malawi in
the early 1990s was an example of the latter. Low-income households
could use the credit to purchase agricultural inputs or simply purchase
food to survive during times of food shortage. Credit could also
be used to replenish assets. During famines, households are often
forced to sell their assets, such as livestock, at very low prices
to secure money for food. This loss of assets not only reduces food
consumption but also affects future food security [5, 7]. Livestock
sales have been occurring at high levels in Malawi, Mozambique,
and Zambia [9]. The other public sphere in which institution-building
is vitally needed is agricultural extension. Improved and expanded
institutions in this field would help small farmers to use the technological
and credit inputs available as productively and efficiently as possible.
PURSUING
THE OPTIMAL COMBINATION AND SEQUENCE OF INTERVENTIONS
Each intervention discussed above has a certain impact on famine mitigation and prevention in terms of immediacy on the one hand, and magnitude and sustainability on the other. Generally, the more immediate the effect of an intervention is, the less are the magnitude of the effect and the sustainability of the intervention over time [5]. The figure below illustrates this.
Figure 1: Spectrum of Interventions for Famine Mitigation
What is vital to keep in mind for famine mitigation is that no one type of intervention will be sufficient for achieving all or any of the objectives: relief, recovery and development. Some combination and sequence of programs will be required. Moreover, the combination and sequence adopted for a country will depend on its specific context and how well recovery is proceeding. A combination of programs might also be needed in a single area to reach different types of households. The question that needs to be considered when designing a famine mitigation strategy then is: what is the optimal combination of interventions at a given time? [5]
In
addition to determining the appropriate combination of programs
needed at a given time, policy planners must consider how interventions
should be sequenced. Relief programs can be terminated too soon
and recovery and development programs initiated when the conditions
are not yet right. For example, if technology or asset transfers
occur while hunger is still severe and without an accompanying food
aid program, seed could be consumed and assets sold [7]. For maximum
effectiveness and because the resources available in a famine-stricken
country are generally low, attention should be given to how interventions
in each phase - relief, recovery and short-term development - can
contribute to efforts in the later phases. The approach must be
to combine and sequence immediate relief projects with short-term
development projects in mutually reinforcing ways to generate multiplier
effects [5]. Conflict may appear to exist between different programs.
The overriding goals, however, to determine the combination and
sequence should be ensuring that no individual is starving and that
the package and order of interventions are cost-effective.
OVERARCHING
ISSUES IN FAMINE MITIGATION AND LONG-TERM FOOD SECURITY
While
specific programs are being designed for famine mitigation, certain
broader issues also need to be considered for both mitigation and
prevention. These are: monitoring and evaluation of interventions;
the relations between the government, NGOs, the private sector and
donors; and governance and policies for long-term food security
and famine prevention.
To guarantee that the needs of the most severely affected households are being met, famine mitigation measures, both immediate relief and short-term development schemes should be monitored and evaluated. Evaluation ought to be done in terms of private and social cost-effectiveness, and the efficiency with which food is made available. Assessing the performance of interventions during famine periods can be difficult and may not be possible, especially during the initial crisis stages. However, even estimates would be helpful for both the present and the future. For the future, the capacity to design and implement monitoring and evaluation systems needs to be developed.
For effective famine prevention and relief, the cooperation between governments, NGOs, the private sector and donors must be strengthened. Each stakeholder has different capacities and it is important that all of these are drawn upon and integrated in overall plans for mitigation and long-term development. Within a country, coordination between the different public agencies should be enhanced.
Without responsible governance, transparency and accountability, investments in growth, development and food security are likely to have little impact. A will must exist on the part of the governments in the southern Africa region to ensure food security and protection from famines regardless of the political and social changes that a country undergoes. If governments allow wars, civil unrest, corruption and poor policies to continue, vulnerability to famines will persist. Indeed, to prevent famines in the future, the governments of southern Africa will have to adopt the well-being of their respective people as their goal.
Famines
are caused by the failure of institutions, organizations and policies.
Famines occur when poverty is endemic, either because agricultural
productivity is low or other employment opportunities do not exist,
when markets are undeveloped, the natural resource base is poor,
and prevention mechanisms are lacking [6]. While various programs
can minimize the impact of famines and lay the groundwork for future
development, policies for famine prevention and long-term food security
are imperative. What is needed are policies that encourage the growth
of the agricultural sector and provide small farmers with the benefits,
infrastructure development, environmental rehabilitation and more
effective markets. For famine prevention, well developed early warning
systems and the proper management of buffer grain stocks are among
the program components needed. The capacity to design and implement
appropriate food policies and programs clearly needs to be developed
at all levels.
CONCLUSION
In spite
of decades of continued efforts to attain food security, several
countries in sub-Saharan Africa continue to remain under the threat
of famine. This has been due basically to poorly designed policies
and ill-equipped institutions. Unfortunately, the current situation
in southern Africa is rather typical. The goal of this paper has
been to briefly discuss the causes of famines in general and the
specific factors that led to the southern Africa crisis, and the
policy measures for mitigation that IFPRI research on the subject
suggests. The paper argues that famine mitigation should be seen
in terms of three stages: immediate relief, recovery and short-term,
or the initiation of development. What is equally important is that
interventions must be selected and designed to lay the foundations
for future food security.Through an effective mitigation strategy,
which involves inter-organizational cooperation, good governance
and steps for long-term development, famines in the future can be
prevented.
What
must be understood as organizations address the current famine,
is that as little as a decade ago, many of the nations of southern
Africa had the capacity for famine prevention. The droughts of 1991-92,
which were viewed as the worst in the preceding fifty years in terms
of production shortfalls did not result in famine. Well-organized
regional and national early warning systems, adequate capacity to
design and implement famine responses, and government and donor
resources for quick importation of food and food aid were some of
the factors that had protected southern Africans from mass starvation
at the time. Since then, however, the capacities of the governments
in the region to deal with food shortages have eroded, the resources
for designing and implementing emergency famine responses are lacking,
and the countries do not have effective institutions at the national
and local levels to organize relief and development efforts. The
experience of mitigating famine in1991-92 shows clearly that there
is a need to build the capacity of institutions in emergency relief,
recovery, development and monitoring for early warning on impending
food shortages. For building this capacity, the contribution of
good governance, and cooperation between government agencies, non-government
agencies, the private sector and the donor community cannot be overemphasized.
REFERENCES
2. Famine Early Warning System Network. http://www.fews.net
3. Mail & Guardian Online. Drought drives Mugabe to declare disaster. 30 April 2002. http.//www.mg.co.za
4. Teklu T Employment Programs for Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute, 1995.
5. Von Braun J, Teklu T and P Webb Famine in Africa: Causes, Responses, and Prevention. Published for IFPRI by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1998.
6. Von Braun J A Policy Agenda for Famine Prevention in Africa. IFPRI Food Policy Report, October 1991.
7. Webb P and J von Braun Famine and Food Security in Ethiopia. Published on behalf of IFPRI by John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, 1994.
8. Yohannes Y and P Webb Classification and Regression Trees, CARTTM: A User Manual for Identifying Indicators of Vulnerability to Famine and Chronic Food Insecurity. Microcomputers in Policy Research Series, 3. IFPRI. 1999.
9. World Food Program. Hunger In Southern Africa: The Unfolding Crisis. http://www.wfp.org
Table
1
Policy Choices for Famine Mitigation
Phase |
|||
Relief
|
Recovery
|
Short-termDevelopment |
|
Policy
Area |
|||
Production
and Supply |
-Food
aid -Food imports |
-Public
and private food-for-work employment programs |
-Agricultural
inputs-Macroeconomic policies favoring staple crops -Private sector input marketing-Agricultural extension |
Marketing & Accessibility |
-Macroeconomic
policies (price stabilization) |
-Public
and private cash-for-work employment programs-Credit for purchases-Public/Private
marketing partnership |
-Credit
systems for inputs & assets-Public/Private marketing partnership |
Human
Capital |
-Investments
in services |
-Investments
in services |
-Agricultural
extension |
*Corresponding author Email: a.bhouraskar.cgiar.org
(1)International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2033 K
Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20006, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
Biotechnology has a long history of use in food production and processing. It represents both traditional breeding techniques and the latest techniques based on molecular biology. The increasing development of genetically modified organisms is accompanied by the need for all-necessary controls related to their testing, relevance, use and cross-border movements. Adequate national legislation is necessary to protect the environment, biodiversity, and human health. There is also need to consider how to carry out adequate levels of risk management of genetically modified organisms in the products, mechanisms and instruments for application and control of biotechnology. This paper discusses the work done at the international level to assure the quality and safety of foods derived from modern biotechnology. It explores the code of conduct for biotechnology as it affects the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. Particular biotechnology-related issues have been considered by a series of FAO/WHO expert consultations and workshops. Emphasis is placed on generic work done at the United Nations level on the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the accompanying Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and more specific work on food and agriculture aspects carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organisation on the UN (FAO), often performed jointly with the World Health Organisation and The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The paper also gives a brief history and scope of the Codex Alimentarius Commission as regards biotechnology and food safety, and implementation of the Joint FAO/WHO food standards. Also explained are Codex Committees such as the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, and the Codex Committee on Food Certification and Inspection Systems, and the interrelationship between FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Trade Organisation and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).
Key
words: biosafety, genetically modified organisms, food quality and food safety
Agriculture (including crops, fishery, forestry, and animal husbandry) must feed an increasing human population, forecast to reach 8,000 million by 2020, of which 6,700 million will be in developing countries[1]. Although population growth rate is steadily decreasing, the increase in absolute numbers to be fed will require steady increased gains in productivity, often in countries where environmental degradation threatens productivity[2].
To meet future needs and to be able to sustain agricultural production, agricultural research will have to use all available technologies, including the rapidly developing modern biotechnologies. FAO recognizes that these biotechnologies are powerful tools in agricultural development, with great potential to benefit agriculture, and at the same time, there are a number of uncertainties and possible risks associated with their use.
New technologies, such as modern biotechnologies, if properly focused, should provide solutions for some of the problems hindering sustainable rural development and the achievement of food security. Biotechnology may also offer a tool to resolve certain environmental problems, some of which derive from unsustainable agricultural and industrial practices [3].
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD
Biotechnology has a long history of use in food production and processing. It represents both traditional breeding techniques and the latest techniques based on molecular biology. Modern biotechnological techniques, in particular, open up great possibilities of rapidly improving the quantity and quality of food available [4].
The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defined biotechnology as "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific uses." In agriculture, biotechnology includes the application of tissue culture, immunological techniques, molecular genetics and recombinant DNA techniques in all facets of agricultural production and agro-industry [5].
Within the past few years, a variety of foods produced using biotechnology have been approved in many countries. Examples are crops such as maize, potatoes, soybeans, tomatoes and oilseeds [6]. The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition. Biotechnology is also being used in a wide range of applications in fermentation techniques and in animals and plants for the production of food additives and pharmaceuticals.
It is important to consider any potential human health or environmental risks when foods are developed using biotechnology. It is vitally important to encourage worldwide efforts to develop and apply appropriate strategies and safety assessment criteria for food biotechnology research and to ensure the wholesomeness and safety of the food supply [7].
The increasing development of genetically modified organisms is accompanied by the need for all necessary controls related to their testing, release, use, and cross-border movements. Adequate national legislation is necessary to protect the environment, biodiversity, and human health. There is also the need to consider how to carry out adequate levels of risk assessment and risk management of genetically modified organisms and their products, mechanisms and instruments for the application and control of biotechnology [7].
The Resumed Extraordinary Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Montreal, Canada adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The objective of the Protocol is to contribute, in accordance with a precautionary approach, to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMO) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account risks to human health, and specifically focussing on trans boundary movements [5,7].
While there are a number of contradictions and imprecise statements in this new Protocol, the key concept seems to be the notion of Advance Informed Agreement (AIA), which should be given by the country of import prior to the trans-boundary movement of an LMO. Many of the provisions of the Protocol need further discussion before they can be implemented and the Protocol contains provisions for such discussions. For example, it appears that the advance informed agreement procedure in the Protocol might not apply to LMOs intended for direct use as food or feed, or for processing. At the same time, The Protocol contains an article on the handling, transport, and identification of LMOs intended for "food, feed or processing" (LMO/FFPs). Such contradictions require further discussion, preferably based on sound science [5,6,7].
The Protocol promotes a "precautionary approach" in assessing the usefulness and safety of LMOs and LMO/FFPs. The Protocol provides that risk assessments shall be carried out in a scientifically sound manner taking also into account risks to human health. The Protocol does not imply a change in the rights and obligations of a Party under any existing international agreement including WTO SPS and TBT Agreements. It is understood that the Protocol and trade agreements should be mutually supportive and none of them should be subordinated to the other [7].
International organizations such as FAO have recognized the need to take a balanced and comprehensive approach to biotechnological development by considering its integration into various areas of the Organization's work program [8].
This paper describes an overview of relevant instruments in the field of biotechnology that deal directly or indirectly with issues related to biotechnology, with particular reference to FAO and relevant bodies and ongoing processes within FAO, and outlines FAO's mandate and capacity to advise its member governments on matters and international regulations relevant to biotechnology and food and agriculture. Cooperation between FAO, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization is also covered as necessary.
To facilitate the quality and safety assessment of foods derived by means of modern biotechnology, action at the international level has been necessary to provide timely expert advice in this matter to all Member States.
INTERNATIONAL WORK ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
FAO has been involved in biotechnology in order to advise and assist its Member Countries to adopt useful methodologies and monitor development in the area. In 1984, an FAO/IAEA* meeting discussed the role of relevant international organizations in biotechnology, and since then numerous sectoral and general meetings have included specific aspects of biotechnology in the FAO context [9].
In 1991, the FAO Council endorsed a draft "Code of Conduct for Biotechnology as it affects the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources". A draft was prepared following a survey among 400 experts worldwide requested by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA). Its aim is to minimize possible negative effects of biotechnology on the overall conservation of plant genetic resources. Noting that CBD was considering the development of a biosafety protocol , the Commission recommended that FAO participate in this work in order to ensure that aspects of biosafety in relation to genetic resources for food and agriculture are appropriately covered [8,9].
In 1995, the Commission (CGRFA) considered a report on Recent International Development of Relevance to the Draft Code of Conduct for Plant Biotechnology. Further work on the draft Code awaits the completion of the current negotiations for the revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
A number of FAO publications - both meeting reports and technical bulletins - have addressed aspects of biotechnology, as a means of assisting member governments to acquire the technology and information on implications for agriculture, and trade-related issues [10].
Particular biotechnology-related issues have been considered by a series of FAO/WHO expert consultations and workshops such as two Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations in 1990 and 1996 which addressed safety assessments of food derived by modern technology and outlined the procedures to be followed in establishing the quality and safety of such food.
The first Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on the Assessment of Biotechnology in Food Production and Processing as Related to Food Safety (November 1990) reviewed the status of biotechnology as used in food production and processing and discussed foods derived from plant, animal and microbial sources [10,11].
The consultation proposed safety assessment paradigms for each food source and recommended that safety assessment strategies should be based on the molecular, biological and chemical characteristics of the food to be assessed. It noted that traditional food safety assessment techniques, based on toxicological testing as used for food additives, for example, may not always apply to foods or food components produced by biotechnology.
A fundamental conclusion of the consultation concerning modern biotechnology was that, "The use of these techniques does not result in food which is inherently less safe than that produced by conventional ones."
Another Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety held in 1996 recommended international guidelines for safety assessment of foods and food components which have been produced by techniques that change the heritable traits of an organism, such as recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology [11].
The 1996 Joint FAO/WHO Consultation established the concept of substantial equivalence, which is a dynamic, analytical exercise in the assessment of the safety of a new food relative to an existing food. This comparative approach was based on the possibilities that it may be possible to demonstrate that a genetically modified organism, or a food or food component derived from it, is substantially equivalent to a conventional counterpart already available in the food supply. Substantially equivalent in this context refers to both conventional nutritional equivalencies and to safety considerations [7,10,11].
If it is not possible to demonstrate substantial equivalence, it may be possible to demonstrate that a genetically modified organism or food/component derived from it is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpartapart from certain defined differences. Thirdly, it may not be possible to demonstrate substantial equivalence between the genetically modified organism or food/component derived there from and a conventional counterpart, either because differences are not sufficiently well defined or because there is no appropriate counterpart with which to make a comparison.
While recognizing there may be limitations to the application of the substantial equivalence approach to safety assessment, the Consultation recommended that safety assessment based upon this concept be applied in establishing the safety of food products derived from genetically modified organisms to provide comparable or increased assurance of the safety of food products derived from biotechnology.
There have been three more expert consultations in 2000 and 2001 designed to provide expert advice to the Codex Ad Hoc Task Force (see Codex below), and to FAO and WHO Member Countries. In June 2000 FAO/WHO convened an Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology that reviewed previous FAO/WHO recommendations and strongly re-endorsed the concept of "substantial equivalence" as the best method of assessing the safety and suitability of foods derived from biotechnology [11,12].
In January 2001 FAO/WHO held a further Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, concentrating on the possible allergenicity of such food. This meeting pointed out that no problems with allergenicity have yet occurred with foods derived from biotechnology, mentioned that some food allergens might be removed from foods by future biotechnology developments, devised some suggested methods for testing new foods for possible allergenicity, and again endorsed the concept of "substantial equivalence".
In September 2001 FAO/WHO held a third Expert Consultation on Food Derived From Biotechnology, to consider safety and suitability aspects of genetically modified microorganisms [12]. The report of this session will be published on the FAO website (http://www.fao.org) as have been most of the previous reports. The meeting confirmed in general the recommendations of previous expert consultations, and pointed out some of the special features of genetically modified microorganisms in the human gut. It did not find any causes for immediate concern, recommended a system for evaluating genetically modified microorganisms, and again endorsed the concept of "substantial equivalence".
QUALITY AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT
The use of biotechnological processes, particularly genetic modification, is extremely important in devising new ways to increase food production, increase pesticide resistance and reduce use of pesticides, improve nutrient content, and provide better processing or storage characteristics. It follows that when new foods or food components are developed using biotechnology, there are both national legal requirements and consumer expectations for effective systems and procedures to assess the safety of the food and food component for consumption [13].
With regard to these needs, there is a series of instruments and international regulations in the field of food and agriculture in FAO that deal directly or indirectly with biosafety and biotechnology related issues which would be of relevance to the quality and safety assessment of foods derived by modern biotechnology [3,13].
FAO PROGRAMMES ON FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY
The Food Quality and Standards Service is a service within the Food and Nutrition Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (or FAO), located in Rome. The Secretariat of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is also located here. The Regular Programme of the Food Quality and Standards Service provides the technical and scientific basis for FAO for all food quality matters, including food safety. This includes providing the secretariat for the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (or JECFA) and participation in both the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues (or JMPR).
The Food Quality and Standards Service of FAO develops and publishes guidelines and manuals (including the FAO Food and Nutrition Series, Manuals of Food Quality Control), arranges expert consultations and conferences (examples of recent consultations include the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety, 30 September - 4 October 1996; the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Application of Risk Management to Food Safety Matters, 27-31 January 1997; the Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Food Consumption and Exposure Assessment to Chemicals, 10-14 February 1997; the FAO Consultation on Animal Feeding and Food Safety, 10-14 March 1997; the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Communication to Food Standards and Safety Matters, February 1998; and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Assessment of Microbiological Hazards in Foods, March 1999) and has a major and continuing programme of providing technical assistance related to food standards and food control to member countries, particularly developing countries and countries in transition from a centrally planned to a market economy.
Two expert committees, the JECFA and JMPR provide the independent scientific advice that forms the basis for the development of food quality and safety recommendations used in international trade. These committees are fora in which independent, invited experts assess the state of scientific knowledge of food additives, pesticide and veterinary drug residues in food, mycotoxins and other chemical contaminants in food, and make recommendations to member governments and to Codex on such matters.
FAO's Food Quality and Standards Service also develops and publishes Manuals of Food Quality Control which provide recommendations for the development and operation of food quality and safety systems. While aimed primarily at providing advice to developing countries, they document modern approaches including the development of quality control programmes throughout the food chain that are applicable to all countries. Such an approach is instrumental in facilitating international trade in food. Key titles in the series include Food Inspection, Food for Export, Management of Food Control Programmes, Imported Food Inspection and Quality Assurance in the Food Control Laboratory.
The programme of technical assistance projects undertaken by FAO's Food Quality and Standards Service includes assistance in food quality control including safety and such projects have established or strengthened the food control systems in a number of developing countries. Typically, they assist in establishing the infrastructure for an enhanced food control programme, assessing laboratory service requirements, providing guidance to develop legislation and procedural manuals, setting up reputable inspection and certification systems and providing training and staff development. In these assistance projects, the standards established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are basic guides to international requirements.
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was formed by FAO and the World Health Organisation in 1962 to implement the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The objectives of the Programme are to ensure consumers' health and fair practices in the food trade. The CAC is an intergovernmental statutory body of FAO and WHO. Its current membership is 165 countries.
The scope of Codex Standards includes all food safety considerations, description of essential food hygiene and quality characteristics, labelling, methods of analysis and sampling, and systems for inspection and certification. Codex Standards, guidelines and recommendations are based on current scientific knowledge including assessments of risk to human health. As mentioned above, risk assessments are carried out by FAO/WHO expert panels of independent scientists selected on a worldwide basis, and the results of their review and deliberations are provided to Codex for use in Codex work, and to FAO/WHO Member Countries [13]. The range of standards developed by the CAC covers all foods whether processed, semi-processed or raw, intended for sale to the consumer or for intermediate processing. Over 200 standards, 45 Codes of Practice and 2,000 Maximum Limits for residues of agricultural and veterinary chemicals have been established.
In 1999, the Codex Alimentarius Commission established the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Codex Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology to develop standards, guidelines or other recommendations on foods derived from biotechnology. The first Session of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Codex Task Force was held in Chiba, Japan from 14 to 17 March, 2000. The second Session was held in Chiba from 26-30 March 2001 [13].
This Task Force is elaborating standards, guidelines or recommendations, as appropriate, for foods derived from biotechnology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology, on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices. It must take full account of existing work carried out by national authorities, FAO, WHO, and other international organizations with relevant programmes, in coordination and collaboration with appropriate Codex Committees within their mandate as relates to foods derived from biotechnology. In its second meeting in 2001, the Task Force prepared "Proposed Draft Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology" and a "Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants". Both of these documents were discussed and adopted by Codex 5 of the Codex Procedures at the July 2001 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. There will be a further discussion of these documents at the 3rd Session of the Task Force in 2002, and, hopefully, agreement will be reached on all aspects of the texts so that final approval at Step 8 of the Codex procedures can be gained at the next Commission Session [8,10,13].
Other Codex Committees such as the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, and the Codex Committee on Food Import Certification and Inspection Systems are discussing biotechnology-related topics such as voluntary or mandatory labeling systems, and means of assuring "Traceability" of foods and ingredients for foods (and feeds) derived from modern biotechnology.
The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations established a new World Trade Organization (WTO) and included negotiations on reducing non-tariff barriers to international trade in agricultural products, and included Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), and on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement). Both Agreements have implications for the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
The SPS Agreement confirms the right of WTO Member countries to apply measures necessary to protect human, animal and plant life and health provided that "such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade".
With respect to food safety, the SPS references the standards, guidelines and recommendations established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission relating to food additives, residues of veterinary drugs and pesticides, contaminants, methods of sampling and analysis, and codes and guidelines of hygienic practice [10,13].
Therefore, measures need to be taken with respect to foods to ensure adherence to the Codex maximum levels or guidelines levels for contaminants, and to the Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticide and veterinary drugs. Measures also need to be taken to ensure that the appropriate hygienic practices are followed at all stages of the animal feeding chain to prevent, eliminate or reduce potential hazards in the food.
The objective of the TBT Agreement is to prevent the use of national or regional technical requirements, or standards in general, as unjustified technical barriers to trade. It covers all types of standards, including all aspects of food standards other than those related to SPS measures, and includes a very large number of measures designed to protect the consumer against deception and economic fraud. The aspects of food standards it covers relate specifically to quality provisions, nutritional requirements, labelling and methods of analysis. The TBT Agreement basically provides that all technical requirements and regulations must have a legitimate purpose and that the impact or cost of implementing the measure must be proportional to the purpose of the measure. It also places emphasis on international standards. Codex standards, guidelines and other recommendations are not binding on Member States, but are a point of reference in international law (General Assembly Resolution 39/248; Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures; Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade).
However, increased scientific, legal and political demands are being made on the standards, guidelines and recommendations elaborated by Codex. This is in part due to increased consumer interest in food safety, the WTO's SPS and TBT Agreements, harmonization initiatives, calls for increased scientific rigour, the need for transparency, and shrinking national regulatory resources.
The CAC is considering the development of a general standard which would apply basic food safety and food control disciplines to foods derived from biotechnology. The advice of prior FAO/WHO expert consultations in this area will be used as guidance for the conditions required for foods prepared from biotechnology [10-13].
OTHER FAO INSTRUMENTS THAT DEAL WITH ISSUES PERTAINING TO BIOSAFETY
The
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
The Commission on Plant Genetic Resources was established by the FAO Conference
in 1983. The mandate of the Commission was broadened to include all genetic
resources that pertain to food and agriculture in 1995. The current Membership
of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is 158 countries
and the European Community [8].
The
Commission has developed the following international agreements relevant to
the biosafety protocol and to CBD:
o The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, adopted by the
FAO Conference in 1983. There are 113 countries that have adhered to the undertaking.
The revision of the undertaking in harmony with the Convention on Biological
Diversity is currently being negotiated by countries through the Commission.
o The International Code of Conduct for Plant Germplasm Collecting and Transfer,
adopted by the FAO Conference in 1993.
In 1989 and 1991, the Commission considered reports on technical and policy
issues regarding biosafety, within the context of biotechnology in general
as explained previously.
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was adopted in 1995 by the
28th Session of the FAO Conference and provides a framework for the sustainable
use and conservation of aquatic biodiversity. The code was created through
negotiations with member countries, NGOs and IGOs and contains articles on:
o General Principles
o Fisheries Management
o Fishing Operations
o Aquaculture Development
o Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area management
o Post-harvest Practices and Trade
o Fisheries Research
Although the Code is voluntary, parts of it are based on relevant rules of
international law, including those reflected in the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea.
Aquaculture is a primary means for the purposeful introduction of aquatic alien species, as well as the main motivation for the use of living modified aquatic organisms [10-13]. Therefore, Article 9 on Aquaculture Development deals specifically with these topics, specifically: Article 9.2 on the "responsible development of aquaculture including culture-based fisheries within transboundary aquatic ecosystems" and Article 9.3 on the "use of aquatic genetic resources for the purpose of aquaculture, including culture-based fisheries".
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
Some of the potential environmental risks concern plant pests. The inclusion of pest resistance in plants should be carefully evaluated for potential development of resistance in pests and possible side effects on beneficiary organisms.
The IPPC is an international treaty for cooperation in plant protection, deposited with FAO and administered by FAO through the Secretariat for the IPPC. The purpose of the Convention is "to secure common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control". The Convention had its beginnings in 1951 and came into force in 1952. It is recognized as the primary instrument for international cooperation in the protection of plant resources from harmful pests . There are currently 106 governments that are contracting parties to the IPPC.
The role of the Convention with respect to trade has changed significantly as a result of the SPS Agreement. This is reflected in substantial amendments found in the New Revised Text approved by FAO Conference in 1997.
The IPPC calls for phytosanitary measures to be based on a pest risk analysis, which covers both economic and environmental factors including possible detrimental effects on natural vegetation. The Convention also allows for the prohibition or restriction of the movement of biological control agents and other organisms of phytosanitary concern claimed to be beneficial into the territories' parties [8-14].
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Biosafety
refers to environmental and human health safeguards concerning genetically
modified organisms (GMO) produced by modern biotechnology. It should eventually
strive to protect resources for food and agriculture, while allowing for their
sustainable use, development of international trade and their
commercialization.
Adequate biosafety regulations, risk assessment of quality and safety of foods derived from biotechnology, mechanisms and instruments for monitoring use and compliance are necessary to ensure that there will be no harmful effects on the environment and the health of people.
FAO
is at the service of Member States to assist in building capacities and provide
technical advice and assistance in priority assignment, resource allocation,
and international regulations. FAO also remains at their service for any other
interactions that might pertain to food and agriculture.
REFERENCES
1. Bloom DE and
S Sachs Geography, Demography and Economic growth in Africa. Brookings Papers
on Economic Activity 2, 1998:1-16.
2. Eberstadt N Populations, Food, and Income: Global Trends in Twentieth Century.
The True State of the World: 1995:7-48.
3. Gabrielle JP and JJ Doyle Biotechnology for Developing-Country Agriculture:
Problems and Opportunities. In: The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives on Overcoming
Hunger, poverty and Environmental Degradation. Pinstrup-Anderson P and Lorch
PR (Eds). International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, USA, 2001:241-243.
4. Paarlberg RL Governing the GM Crop Revolution: Policy Choices for Developing
Countries. In: The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives on Overcoming Hunger, poverty
and Environmental Degradation. Pinstrup-Anderson P and Lorch PR (Eds). International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, USA, 2001:250-255.
5. UN. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, U.N. New York, 1992.
6. Wambugu F Modifying Africa How Biotechnology can Benefit the Poor and Hungry,
a Case Study from Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya, 2001.
7. United Nations. Cartagena Protocol on Biosaftey, U.N New York, 1999.
8. FAO. Code of Conduct for Biotechnology as it affects the Conservation and
Use of plant Genetic resources, FAO, Rome, 1991, 2001.
9. FAO/IAEA. Consultation in the Assessment of Biotechnology in Food Production
and Processing as related to Food Safety, FAO, Rome, 1990.
10. FAO/WHO. Consultation on the Assessment of Biotechnology in Food Production
and Processing as related to Food Safety, FAO, Rome, 1990.
11. FAO/WHO. Joint Consultation on Biotechnology on Biotechnology and Food
Safety, FAO Rome, 1996.
12. FAO/WHO. Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, (with
emphasis on possible allerginicity). FAO, Rome, 2001.
13. FAO/WHO. The unpublished Codex Document ALINORM 97/13, Appendix II. Report
on the 28th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, FAO, Rome, 1995.
14. FAO. World agriculture towards 2010, Alexandratos N (ed). FAO, Rome, 1996:257-293.
Adjunct Professor of Food Science, Department
of Food Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, and
Former Director, Food and Nutrition Division, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Email: lupien@srd.it
* The original version of this paper was prepared in collaboration with Dr. Mungi Sohn, former FAO associate expert
PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY: PERSPECTIVES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BETWEEN 2002 AND 2025 |
ABSTRACT
In the first
30 years of the 3rd millennium, the global demand for food will double. In
order to produce enough food and to ensure good harvests, farmers everywhere
in the world need a reliable source of good-quality seed. Access to improved
seeds, adapted to local conditions, will be the key to achieving sustained
intensification of food production. Crop improvement by means of biotechnology
has now become a reality. The "globalisation of biotechnology" is
underway. Although the potential of biotechnology is now quite well known,
and indeed was advocated in Agenda 21 as early as 1992, progress in the development,
realization and utilization of genetically modified crops in many developing
countries is far too slow. By reorganizing plant DNA resources, it will be
possible to improve the carrying capacity of the Earth. Innovative and vigorous
forms of public-private collaboration are required if the benefits of modern
biotechnology are to be brought to all of the world's people; incentives are
needed to encourage commercial research companies to share with the public
sector more of their capacity for innovation. "Making New Technologies
Work for Human Development" [1] will be a sustainable guideline for responsible
people shaping our future, because: "Mankind is at the Crossroads".
Key words: food, transgenic plants, functional genomics, biotechnology strategy,
scientific apartheid, technology transfer, private-public partnership
INTRODUCTION
At the end of the second millennium, only 0.26% more food was produced on the globe than was actually consumed [1]. Elimination of hunger for 840 million people was not achieved. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium, global demand for food will double in the next 30 years. Consequently, crucial questions must be answered: "How can we feed the future world population in a sustainable way and keeping with human dignity?" [2], "Who will be fed in the 21st century?" [3], and "What can or must be done by whom to react to changes in time?" [4].
Although the potential of biotechnology is now quite well known, and indeed was advocated in Agenda 21 as early as 1992, progress in the development, realisation and utilisation of genetically modified crops in many developing countries is far too slow. The quantitative contribution of biotechnology and genetic engineering to world food security - not the elimination of hunger - in the different regions of the world can be outlined as follows: in the year 2025 the developed world (the USA, Europe, Australia, Canada, CIS) will produce 28% of its food using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Asia will produce 20% of its food supply using GMOs, Latin America 17% and Africa around 6% [5,6].
The uneven diffusion of technology - both old and new - is well documented in the UNDP report 2001 [1]. If developing countries have no or only limited access to biotechnology as such, they will increasingly fall behind industrialised nations. They run the risk of missing out on potential opportunities in the field of biotechnology. Ismail Serageldin, former chairman of CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) has described this as "scientific apartheid" [6].
If the introduction
of biotechnology in Africa is delayed, its contribution will be a mere six
percent by 2025 [5]. There are two reasons for the small share of GMO-based
seeds and plant stock in Africa:
(i) Biotechnology has difficulty finding lucrative market segments in African
countries. When introducing this technology, private firms concentrate on
profitable markets, notably in the industrial countries [5].
(ii) In the EU the risks associated with GMOs are the subject of much debate
and controversy. The conclusion drawn from this is that, as long as the risks
associated with these technologies are not 100% clear, there should be no
transfer of these technologies to developing countries [5,6].
The book titled: "Der Preis der Sattheit - Gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel" (Price of Repletion - Genetically Modified Food) written by Pinstrup-Andersen and Schiøler in 2001 [7] describes the mistaken ideas many consumers and consumer associations - especially in Europe - have about the potential of biotechnology for developing countries. Consumer societies, organizing their own passiveness and faint-heartedness, should not make decisions for developing countries [8].
Paarlberg concluded
that it is somewhat discouraging to see in so many cases that the most important
stakeholders - poor farmers with families to feed - have not yet been given
official permission to use biotechnology for raising farm productivity [8].
"Well-fed people in the developed world may have problems, but hungry
people in the developing world have only one - how to feed themselves and
their families. Well-fed people may engage in lengthy debates about the real
or imagined risks of the use of genetically modified crops. Hungry people
see crops produced by biotechnology as food. It is abundantly clear that if
governments halt the growth of this technology, poor countries will be denied
an important solution to the lack of food security" is a clear and remarkable
statement made by Thomson [9]. Thembitsha Joseph from Buthelezi, South Africa
described the situation in the following words: "In the West, people
have the luxury of being afraid of biotechnology, but for us it's a question
of life or death" [10].
CONVENTIONAL PLANT BREEDING
A vital component for sustainable farming is seed. In order to ensure good harvests, farmers everywhere in the world need a reliable source of good-quality seed. Access to improved seeds, adapted to local conditions, is the key to achieving sustained intensification of food production. The corresponding advances in the field of biotechnology and genetically modified plants will come from both the public sector and, increasingly, from the private sector.
The quality/technology resides in the seed itself - farmers do not even have to change their traditional farming methods in order to achieve better yields. But what are we proposing to do? How can these key technologies be made available to small farmers? What improvements in plant attributes are needed and are beneficial in the long term?
The kind of seed farmers need must be selected with a view to its suitability for sowing on their particular land. Before it can be made available in large quantities, it must be also thoroughly tested on that land. Improved hybrids or varieties are useless unless a sufficient quantity of seeds are available to the farmer, or if they do not conform to high standards of quality and purity.
Many crop species that are important for developing countries are not of much interest to multinational seed companies, even to those with operations in developing countries. That is why it is important to support the setting up of national or regional seed industries, both in the public and the private sector. The resulting seed improvements will bring considerable benefits to small farmers in particular. In many African countries, the dependency on imported main food crops is between 65 and 100%, and in most of them it exceeds the 90% level [11]. Since countries in such regions lack large efficient in situ (gene bank) collections as well as a broad base of modern varieties of these major food crops, future agricultural development will clearly require secure access to the germplasm of non-indigenous crops such as maize (centre of diversity: Central America), cassava (South America), wheat (Near East), rice (Indochina), beans (Central and South America), plantain and banana (Indochina), and potato (South America). Africa is not unique, however, in having a food system based on crops with foreign origins. Almost all regions of the world are in a similar situation [11].
Regarding the
flow of germplasm between different countries, Fowler et al. [11] have summed
up the position as follows:
(i) Developing countries have been, and still continue to be, net recipients
of a large amount of germplasm samples from gene banks and breeding programmes
of IARCs (International Agricultural Research Centre). They receive substantially
more germplasm samples from CGIAR gene banks than they themselves supply,
a situation likely to become even more pronounced in the future.
(ii) Developing countries receive significantly more germplasm samples from
the gene banks than do developed countries.
(iii) Germplasm samples from CGIAR gene banks and crop programmes appear to
be distributed to private companies only to a minor extent for most of the
crops studied.
(iv) A massive amount of improved germplasm is following in nursery shipments
from centre breeding programmes to developing countries.
The authors conclude
that continued facilitated access to germplasms in today's world is a 'win-win'
situation for all, and one that is particularly important for developing countries.
Germplasm transfers in the past often aimed at crop introduction, whilst recent
flows are generally directed to conventional crop improvement. In future it
will be essential to have access to modern biotechnology and genetic engineering
technologies.
Genetic Modification (GM) technology, coupled with important developments in other areas should be used to increase the production of main staple foods, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers.
MODERN PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY
Crop improvement using biotechnology has now become a reality. The estimated global area of transgenic or GM crops for 2001 is 52.6 million hectares [12].
For 2002, it is expected that GM crop plantings in USA/Canada will suddenly rise to a record level, because farmers there are spending less on inputs such as plant protection products and fuel. The "globalization of biotechnology" is underway, especially if commercialisation of GMOs takes place in Indonesia, India, and Brazil in 2002. This would have the result that GMOs will be grown in countries where more than 50% of the global population are living.
Agricultural biotechnology is expected to contribute significantly towards poverty reduction and food security in different regions of the world - especially in Asia, where 2.8 billion people live on less than $US 2 a day - through increased productivity, lower production costs and lower food prices, and improved nutrition [13]. Biotechnology is not a panacea for solving the world's hunger problem, and it will not be able to eradicate hunger - hunger has dozens of 'fathers', most of them man-made.
The positive contributions of agricultural biotechnology to alleviating poverty and improving food security for small, medium-sized and big farms have been well described in the meantime [13-24].
Studies in Mexico, China, Kenya and more African countries [11-13, 25-27] have shown that the new technology and the new products were readily adopted by farmers. The "quality/technology is in the seed" and farmers do not need to alter their traditional farming practices to obtain tremendous benefits. Insect-resistant cabbage, for example, is not cultivated in any other way than non-insect-resistant cabbage. Insect-resistant cabbage is, however, not devoured by cabbage moths and thus safeguards the harvest [4].
Furthermore, estimates of national economic advantages to farmers planting transgenic crops as well as the distribution of economic surplus between farmers, technology developer, seed supplier, and consumers are well documented [27-30].
Unfortunately,
the speed of development, implementation and utilization of genetically modified
crops in the developing countries is unsatisfactory.
The status report of the Twenty-Sixth FAO Regional Conference for the Near
East held in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, March 2002 summarised the situation
under the following points [31]:
(i) Biotechnology could solve many of the constraints that limit crop livestock,
forestry and fishery production in the Near East.
(ii) Priority setting in the region should involve various stakeholders and
take into account national development policies, private sector interests
and market opportunities.
(iii) Partnerships between foreign and local institutions can assist in the
transfer of know-how and help to mitigate the patent requirements.
(iv) It is imperative that developing countries of the Near East region should
not be left at the edge of development or placed at a disadvantage. No further
comment is necessary here!
A status report on plant biotechnology would turn out to be similar in many
African countries.
However, there are positive examples. At the beginning of 2002, in laboratories and greenhouses throughout the globe, several hundred genetically modified plants are being optimised in both developed and developing countries [25]. In China alone, between 1996 and 2000 there were 251 cases of GM plants [25]. The current goal for Chinese investments is to create a modern, market-responsive and internationally competitive biotechnology research and development system [32]. China intends be a source of plant biotechnology for its own farmers and for farmers in the rest of the world, as claimed by Huang et al. [25]. China will become an exporter of biotechnology research methods.
Meanwhile, more than 2000 Chinese scientists have identified over 50 plant species and more than 120 functional genes for plant genetic engineering. China's total investment in plant biotechnology in 1999 was estimated to be $US 112 million (about 9.2% of the national crop research budget). The total benefits of Bt cotton sown areas were $US 334 million in 1999 [25]. In 2001, James reported, that the number of farmers that benefited from GM crops increased from 3.5 million in 2000 to 5.5 million in 2001 [14]. More than three-quarters of the farmers who benefited from GM crops in 2001 were low-resource farmers planting Bt cotton, mainly in China and in South Africa.
However, everyone should be aware that the genetic code is a gigantic biological manuscript, which we have only just started to investigate and decipher. One of the principal objectives is to determine the functions of genes in silico (computer modelling) in vitro and in vivo. This applies to plants from the First to the Fourth World.
More than 20 organisms have already been fully deciphered genetically. The genome of virtually all-major crop plants will have been analysed within the next five to ten years [33].
Functional genomic research will help us understand how the genome determines the phenotype. Marker-supported seed development will be a basic instrument for future seed improvements. It will enable the development time for seed to be reduced from ten or twelve years to less than five years. Improved characteristics in terms of specific climatic conditions and locations can then be introduced more rapidly into high-yield varieties.
Seed optimization will be increasingly adapted to future requirements by new strategies and tactics, which will be developed largely as an outcome of functional genomic research [33].
By reorganizing plant DNA resources, it is possible to improve the carrying capacity of the Earth. If poor people in the developing countries were given direct access to modern technologies (biotechnology, genetic engineering), they could significantly improve their own lives and the natural environment in which they live. However, for developing countries to be able to use genetic engineering for country-specific or region-specific purposes, they must be given direct access to the techniques and methods of genetic engineering. Certainly, the implementation of new technologies has to respect and reflect social, political, ecological and economic aspects.
At the beginning of 2002, in laboratories and glasshouses throughout the globe, several hundred genetically modified plants are being optimized with a view to impending climatic aspects. Many of them will be used in the foreseeable future, both in developed and in developing countries.
Biotechnology will produce plants with characteristics such as resistance to drought, heat, cold, salt and pathogens, thus enabling them to be cultivated even in extreme localities. The following examples were taken from an overview made by the author in 2002 [4].
In South America, particularly in Peru and Bolivia, attempts are being made to modify potatoes genetically to make them tolerant to cool temperatures or frost.
In China, efforts are being directed at breeding tomatoes, pepper and aubergines resistant to sea water. By introducing key prolin synthesis enzymes, it is intended to make a wide range of plants resistant to high salt concentrations and drought. In Nigeria, work is going on with yams, cassava and sweet potato to improve their storage characteristics. In India, scientists have succeeded in halving the water consumption of mustard plants, and the corresponding field trials are currently in progress. Millet genes are being used to protect wheat and rice better against drought. Furthermore, transgenic variety of chickpea and pigeon pea which are resistant against drought and biotic stress are in the focus of research and should be on the market by 2005. In Iran, where drought and salinity are the main causes of reduced agricultural productivity, rice and some other crops are genetically modified to improve drought resistance and salt tolerance. In the Philippines, rice plants are being genetically modified at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in order to achieve a drastic reduction in methane production. At the CIMMYT in Mexico, drought-resistant maize is being developed. At the USDA in the USA, efforts are being focused on drought-tolerant varieties of soybean. In the USA, research is being carried out in California to develop drought-resistant vine and fruit-tree varieties. In Egypt and the USA, wheat and tomato plants are being developed with resistance to salt and drought. In Japan, genes from barley are transferred into rice in order to grow rice in iron poor soil. In the USA, bent grass - a species used specially for golf courses - is being made drought-resistant. In Canada, trees are being developed with reduced sensitivity to frost and drought. In Spain, efforts are going on to make a wide range of plants resistant to drought, high salt concentrations and aridity. In South Africa, the main emphasis is on genetically modified plants able to survive drought. The Rockefeller Foundation presently concentrates its biotechnology programs in Asia on drought tolerance in rice and maize.
Drought causes severe yield loss worldwide, especially in developing countries, and it will continue to be among the most damaging stresses in crop production [4]. CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research, Lyon, France), and INRA ( Institute National de la Recherche Agronomoque, Lyon, France) in cooperation with Aventis CropScience proposed in 2001 a joint project under the MIR (French Ministry of International Relation) and the NRF (South African National Research Foundation) in order to improve crop tolerance to abiotic stress. The main objective is to engineer pathways to increase the basal level of essential amino acids and low molecular weight compounds in plants of agronomic interest.
Recent results of joint research conducted by Aventis CropScience and the Institute of Biotechnology of the University of Cambridge in England have shown accelerated plant growth resulting from increased cell division. After an Arabidopsis gene had been introduced into a tobacco plant, it was possible to achieve growth rates twice as high as those of normal plants. This achievement opens up opportunities to speed up the growing season, resulting in several harvests a year and an overall increase in plant biomass production [34].
In January 2002, Agrinomics LLC, a 50/50 research joint venture between Exelixis Plant Sciences and Aventis CropScience, characterized and catalogued more than 250,000 lines of the plant species Arabidopsis thaliana, and identified nearly its entire genome. The collection allows a rapid identification of genes which play important roles in crop improvement and which can enhance plant breeding. The complete sequencing of the Arabidopsis thaliana genome is a landmark in plant sciences and the beginning of a new venture to unravel genetic information and to gain better insight into the genetics of other species. Within the next five years, a broad spectrum of important functional genes will be found and used for significant crop improvements.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The adaptation of new technologies initially benefits the early adopters most, and since economies in a region are closely linked, technological changes in one country have an impact on neighbouring countries [22].
Efficient crop
production, improved seeds and capacities for genetic engineering are of strategic
relevance for nations and regions, and for the world as a whole.
Governments have to be encouraged to implement the supportive policies outlined
by Krattinger [22]:
(i) to establish a coherent national biotechnology policy,
(ii) to provide incentives for R&D,
(iii) to ensure effective public awareness,
(iv) to establish effective biosafety and food safety regulations, and
(v) to enact IP (Intellectual Property) legislation to establish a regime
consistent with legal obligations under WTO (World Trade Organization).
Policy makers must be both aware of their role and responsibility in biotechnology and know the support activities offered by professional organizations. In each country it will be essential to develop a specific biotechnology strategy in order to get access to benefits of modern biotechnology. A description of the status or necessary biotechnology policy in Mexico is given by Qaim and Falconi in 2001 [35].
Crop biotechnology policies adopted and actions undertaken by developing countries to implement crop biotechnology were developed for example, in Egypt and Kenya. These countries have developed biosafety procedures, regulatory frameworks and are enhancing biosafety expertise by training their scientists. Capacity-building programmes are key factors implementing crop biotechnology in developing countries [36].
Important aspects to enhance biosafety scientific expertise in sub-Saharan Africa are documented in the dialogue summary of the conference held in Grottaferrata, Italy, March 2002 [37]. Actual guidelines for biosafety systems in developing countries are filed by CABIO (Collaborative Agricultural Biotechnology) in May 2002 [38].
One of the major tasks of both the private and public sector is to provide suitable new and improved technologies. In doing this, ways must be found to enable components of technologies protected by patent to be used to a limited extent by public bodies, particularly in developing countries. The governments of developing countries, the donor community and the private sector must all take the steps that are so urgently needed to build partnerships [5].
Innovative and vigorous forms of public-private collaboration are required if the benefits of modern biotechnology are to be brought to all of the world's people; incentives are needed to encourage commercial research companies to share with the public sector more of their capacity for innovation [39].
To adapt private
sector technology to the needs of developing countries, the following conditions
must be fulfilled:
(i) a formal system of authorization to ensure that worldwide deregulation
standards are met,
(ii) enforceable protection of intellectual property,
(iii) infrastructures for national and international technology transfer including
analytical processes for GMO monitoring,
(iv) investments in development,
(v) a national or regional seed industry.
Actual aspects of the African seed industry were discussed during the AFSTA (African Seed Trade Association) congress in Dakar, Senegal, March 2002. A task for governments will be to fund public research institutions while simultaneously persuading the private sector - for example, industry - to enter into mutually advantageous partnerships.
According to the FAO (Food for All, FAO, 1996; Declaration of the World Food Summit, FAO, 2002) [40], cooperation in the transfer, adaptation and dissemination of technologies for food production in favour of the developing countries will be indispensable. The greatest challenge for the future will be to intensify the use of science and technology. Deeper scientific understanding simply means a systematic understanding of nature and this, together with the development, adaptation, dissemination and transfer of technologies including biotechnology, will permit sustainable development in agriculture. Principle 9 of AGENDA 21, Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, recommends the following: "Scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies" [34]
At the beginning of 2002, the UNCCD (United Nations Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification) and Aventis CropScience signed a memorandum of understanding in the field of efficient use of natural resources, sustainable agricultural production, and technology transfer for a better crop protection and crop production, especially in arid regions of developing countries.
CONCLUSIONS
Enhancing agricultural efficiency and prudent conservation of resources by means of green biotechnology will be one of the answers to the questions raised at the beginning.
The industrialized and newly industrialized countries are ceaselessly developing new technologies and technical solutions. It will be decisive to implement these in good time and to enable the developing and least developed countries to avail themselves of them automatically. In this way it will be possible to prevent any fall-off in food production in the areas or regions at risk. The so-called First World has the resources to do this, together with the obligation to pass on the necessary knowledge and key technologies to developing countries. Ultimately this can only come about if all act together. Suggestions for future cooperative ventures are given in Partnerships in public and private agronomic research [5].
In this connection a catchphrase like "More haste, less speed" is totally inadequate. There is an ethical imperative not only to keep the technology portfolio open to biotechnology and genetic engineering, but also not to lose time. Everyday lost, every decision delayed, will kill people, increase poverty and will damage the environment, and put our future at risk. "Be in time" and "Let's act", or simply "Do it!" are what is required if we are to move on from a constructive dialogue to the necessary responsible action. Actions have to come from the Rio+10 conference 'Sustainable Development' in Johannesburg, South-Africa, September 2002. Let us work for that!
"Making New Technologies Work for Human Development" [1] will be a sustainable guideline for responsible people shaping our future, because: "Mankind is at the crossroads".
REFERENCES
1. UN. Human
Development Report 2001 Making New Technologies Work for Human Development.
UNDP, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2001.
2. Kern M Future of Agriculture. Global Dialogue EXPO 2000, The Role of the
Village in the 21st Century: Crops, Jobs, and Livelihood, 15-17 August 2000,
Hanover, Germany, 2000.
3. Wiebe K, Ballender N and P Pinstrup-Andersen Who will be fed in the 21st
Century? John Hopkins University Press, USA, 2001.
4. Kern M Spannungsfeld: Ernährung, Landwirtschaft, Ökologie in
der 1. bis 4. Welt - Lösungsansätze, Lösungsmöglichkeiten,
Notwendigkeiten. in: Hohenheimer Umwelttagung 34: Globale Klimaerwärmung
und Ernährungssicherung, eds: Böcker R und Sandhage-Hofmann. Stuttgart-Hohenheim.
2002;23-39.
5. Kern M New Partnerships, Partnership in Public and Private Sector. Agriculture
and Rural Development, 2001;2:15-22
6. Serageldin I and GI Persley Promothean Science-Agricultural Biotechnology,
the Environment and the Poor. CGIAR, Washington, USA, 2000.
7. Pinstrup-Andersen P and Schiøler E Der Preis der Sattheit - Gentechnisch
veränderte Lebensmittel. Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York, 2001.
8. Paarlberg RL The Politics of Precaution, Genetically Modified Crops in
Developing Countries. Food Policy Statement No. 35, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, USA, 2001.
9. Thomson J It's all in the genes. Sunday Times, 12 August 2001
10. Mennessier MT Biotechnology: A New Genetically Modified Strain is Changing
Life For Small Farmers in Makhatini (South-Africa). Translation of an article
appeared in Le Figaro, May, 2001.
11. Fowler C, Smale M and S Gaiji Unequal Exchange? Recent Transfers of Agricultural
Resources and their Implications for Developing Countries. Development Policy
Review, 2001;19/2:181-204.
12. Qaim M The Economic Effects of Genetically Modified Orphan Commodities:
Projections for sweet potato in Kenya. ISAAA Briefs, 13, published in collaboration
with Centre for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, 1999.
13. Asian Development Bank. Agricultural Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction,
and Food Security. A Working Paper, ADB, Manila, The Philippines, 2001.
14. Wambugu F Case Study: North-South-Transfer of Biotechnology to East Africa.
In: International Workshop on Biotechnology for Crop Production - its Potential
for Developing Countries. Berlin, 9-13 December 1996.
15. James C Global Review of Commercialised Transgenic Crops: 2001. ISAA Briefs
16. Perseley GJ and MM Lantin (eds) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor.
CGIAR, Washington, USA, 2000.
17. Spillane C Could agricultural biotechnology contribute to poverty alleviation?
AgBiotechNet, Vol. 2, March 2000.
18. Phipps RH and DE Beever New Technology: Issues relating to the use of
genetically modified crops. J. Animal and Feed Sciences, 2000;9:543-561.
19. Amerasinghe N Poverty, Food Security, and Agricultural Biotechnology:
Challenges and Opportunities, Seventh International Forum on Asian Perspectives
June 18-19, 2001, Paris, France.
20. Pachio D, Escobar Z, Rivas L, Gottret V and S Perez Income and employment
of transgenic herbicide resistant cassava in Colombia: A preliminary simulation.
In: The International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR),
2001.
21. Pinstrup-Andersen P Developing Appropriate Biotechnology Policies for
Developing- Country Agriculture. In: The Unfinished Agenda, Perspectives on
Overcoming Hunger, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation. Pinstrup-Andersen
P and Pandya-Lorch R, (eds). International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, USA, 2001.
22. Krattinger AF Public-Private Partnerships for Efficient Proprietary Biotech
Management and Transfer and Increased Private Sector Investments. A Briefings
Paper with Six Proposals Commissioned by UNIDO. IP Strategy Today, 2002;4:1-42,
www.swiftt.Cornell.edu
23. USDA Economic Service: Meeting World Food Demand, The Role of Biotechnology.
Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, 2001;AIB-762:47-52.
24. Sehgal S Agricultural Biotechnology and Seed Industry: Some Implications
for Food Production and Security: in: Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing
Countries: Towards Optimising the Benefits for the Poor. Qaim M, Krattinger
A and von Braun J (eds), Kiuwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
25. Huang J, Rozelle S and Q Wang Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 2002;295:671-677
26. Zhang Q Agricultural Biotechnology, Opportunities to Meet the Challenges
of Food Production. In: Perseley GJ and Lantin MM (eds.) Agricultural Biotechnology
and the Poor. CGIAR, Washington, USA, 2000.
27. De Kathen A Transgenic Crops in Developing Countries - A report on field
releases, biosafety regulations and environmental impact assessments. Umweltbundesamt
Texte, Berlin, 1999;58
28. Carpenter JE and LP Gianassi Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit
Estimates. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, 2001;1-46.
29. Edge JM, Benedict JH, Carroll JP and HK Reding Bollgard Cotton: An Assessment
of Global Economic, Environmental, and Social Benefits. J. Cotton Science,
2001;5:1-8.
30. Phipps RH and JR Park Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops:
Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use.
J. Animal and Feed Sciences, 2002;11:1-18.
31. FAO Twenty-sixth FAO Regional Conference for the Near-East, Biotechnology
for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Near-East Region, Tehran, Islamic
Republic of Iran, 9-13 March, 2002.
32. Cohen JI Harnessing Biotechnology for the Poor: Challenges ahead for Capacity,
Safety and Public Investment. J. Human Development, 2001;2/2:239-263.
33. Mahalakshmi V and R Ortiz Plant genomics and agriculture: From model organisms
to crops, the role of data mining for gene discovery. EJB Electronic Journal
of Biotechnology, 2001;4/3:1-10.
34. Kern M 'Visualised Agenda 21' - Poster-Session made by Aventis CropScience,
Manfred Kern/Konzept+Design, Frankfurt, 2001.
35. Qaim M and CA Falconi Agricultural biotechnology policies and research
investments in Mexico. Int. J. Biotechnology, 2001;3, 3/4:323-337.
36. DaSilva EJ, Baydon E and A Badran Biotechnology and the developing world.
Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 2002;5/1, http://www.ejb.org/content/vol5/issue1/full/1
37. Meridian Institute Enhancing biosafety scientific expertise in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Dialogue summary, Grottaferra, Italy, 12-14 March 2002. http://www.merid.org/biosafety/Meeting_Summary.pdf
38. USAID Guidelines. 2002 Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS). http://www.usaid.gov/ftp_data/pub/OP/RFA/rfaegatafs02001/rfaegatafs02001.pdf
39. Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian
Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National
Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy
of Sciences: Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, National Academic Press,
Washington, USA, 2000, http://www.nap.edu/html/transgenic
40. FAO. Declaration of the World Food Summit: five years later, World Food
Summit, FAO, Rome, Italy, 10-13 June, 2002. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/Y6948E.HTM
Aventis CropScience (in future: Bayer CropScience)
Industrial Park Höchst, K607 D-65926 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
Email: Manfred.Kern@BayerCropScience.com