- Email: [email protected]
Biotechnology and sustainable development in the Third World
298
forum Glossary. Acronyms DGIS - Directorate General for International Cooperation of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. IDRC- International Development Research Centre. NGOs- Non-GovernmentalOrganizations. OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. SAREC- Swedish Agencyfor ResearchCooperationwith DevelopingCountries.
during the debate focused on (1) how to protect small-scale farmers in developing countries by strengthening their legal position with regard to the genetic resources they have maintained and conserved, and (2) how to develop biotechnological innovations appropriate for small-scale farming systems. Exchange of information among all groups involved in the development and dissemination of biotechnological innovations, the end-users of the technology and groups who represent and/or work with them, was considered crucial by the organizers. The debate was attended by NGOs (see Glossary for acronyms) from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representatives of governments of developing countries, donor organizations (e.g. World Bank, IDRC, SAREC, DGIS, FAO), biotechnologists from both private and public research institutes, students, farmers, farmers' organizations, and representatives of multinational companies. The central discussion themes were: • strategies to implement appropriate and feasible biotechnological research projects and programmes in public research agendas; • strategies for developing the concept of 'farmers' rights' as a legal guarantee for local breeders in developing countries; • codes of conduct for multinational companies.
Appropriate biotechnology for small-scale farmers Earlier experiences with the introduction of technological innovations in developing countries, such as the Green Revolution (the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops [HYVs]), have shown that resource-rich farmers, who are able to purchase the necessary fertilizers, chemicals and irrigation facilities, were able to benefit, but that these types of TIBTECHSEPTEMBER1991 (VOL9)
innovations were often inappropriate for resource-poor, smallscale farmers.
The interactive bottom-up approach The 'Interactive Bottom-up Approach q'2 was presented by Dr J. E. W. Broerse during the debate. This model was developed by the department of Biology and Society, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for assessing the potential of biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries and finding ways of prioritizing support for research projects or programmes for a specific country or region. The basic assumption of this model is that not the technology, but the end-user, should be central in the formulation of priorities for research. The interactive bottom-up approach bridges the gap between scientists and farmers by providing a way to develop farmer-led innovations: the approach implies a long-term commitment (5-10 years), and a high degree of flexibility in both funding and formulation of research priorities. It should be considered as an openended process, permitting choices to be made through the active participation of the target group involved. The approach regards exchange of information between all groups which are involved in the development and application of biotechnological innovations (farmers' organizations and other NGOs, biotechnologists, social scientists, politicians, government officials and donor organizations) as a prerequisite for being able to prioritize research. In his opening speech, the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, Mr Pronk, concluded: 'In my view the approach developed.., fits very well with a bottom-up poverty action policy such as the one I have set out in the policy
document "Een Wereld van Verschil" [A World of Difference] t. They go hand in glove. I know of no better assessment methodology in this field. A recent book review* raised the question whether projects funded by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation are actually set up according to this model. I can confirm that they are. ! intend to test this model under practical conditions'. The discussions during the debate resulted in recommendations for recipient countries, donor organizations, the international private sector, NGOs, farmers and farmers' organizations. The overall conclusion was that the contribution of biotechnological innovations to sustainable rural development requires an international interdisciplinary research organiza t i o n - an approach including the expertise of social scientists, economists, ecologists, agronomists and technologists.
Farmers' rights and patent legislation At present, there are two forms of intellectual property protection which consider plant material as part of their field of activity (i.e. patent legislation and plant breeders' rights). In the patent legislation of most countries, plants and animals are exempt from patent protection, but this exemption is subject to considerable pressure. In several international organizations, proposals have been put forward for making possible the patenting of biotechnological techniques, genetic material and newly created plants and animals. Breeders in the industrialized countries have most to gain from broadening patent legislations. During the debate, the possible consequences of changes in what is patentable and the introduction of farmers' rights as a legal guarantee
*The general policy document of DGIS. *The recent book review Pronk refers to featured in the Dutch newspaper N R C on 28 March 1991, written by thejournalist Henk Donkers. In this article, three books were reviewed1'3'4.
299
forum for local communities were discussed. D r J. Hardon, Director o f the Netherlands Centre for Genetic Resources summarized the discussions as follows: 'There should be a reasonable balance between the interests o f those contributing to crop improvement and the society at large. O n the one hand, it requires private industry to restrain its attitudes towards protecting its interests where it affects food production, notably in developing countries. A good and hopeful start in this respect is the establishment o f the Green Industry Biotechnology Platform (GIBiP), consisting of major private companies involved in biotechnological research where these issues are debated. O n the other hand, it requires public fmanced research and the informal sector to balance and safeguard the interests of resource-poor farmers. There is some irony in the fact that, while these farmers are major custodians of still existing genetic diversity in crops, they benefit least from research employing such d i v e r s i t y . . . ' It was recommended that a farmers' rights proposal should include the maintenance of plant breeders' rights and prevent the extension o f patent legislation to cover the genetic material of plants and animals. Such a legal guarantee should be established by an international organization with the power to apply sanctions. The efforts o f local communities in conserving genetic resources should be recognized by the establishment o f an international genefund s. The United Nations Conference on Environment and SThe international genefund is meant to be a fund source to compensate local communities in the Third World for their efforts in conserving genetic resources. Payment should be obligatory and is based on the degree to which the users of the genetic material (e.g. government institutions and industry) profit from it. A substantial part of the genefund is supposed to be used to support local communities.
Development ( U N C E D ) to be held in 1992 was considered as a major opportunity for taking further steps towards these goals. During this conference, proposals will be submitted for the establishment of an international Fund for Plant Genetic Resources. This could provide substance to the principle of farmers' rights and the principle of genetic resource as a 'Heritage of Mankind' as embodied in the F A O Undertaking*.
Codes of conduct In a number of cases, multinational companies have been involved in the development of biotechnological innovations which are viewed as having had a negative impact on Third World countries. To prevent this situation recurring, regulations concerning relationships with developing countries, in terms of national and international legislation as well as internal and external codes of conduct, are called for. The general aim o f codes of conduct is the acceptance of a voluntary restriction o f the theoretical legal freedom. Internal industrial codes are often a reaction from industry to what they see as negative public perception of a situation or in anticipation o f possible future government legal measures. External codes o f conduct usually originate and are formulated by organizations or pressure groups from outside industry. Pronk concluded: 'Unfortunately, the international negotiations on a code of conduct for trans-national companies, which have been dragging on for years, reached an impasse last year . . . . Perhaps understanding the risks o f unbridled development and the application of biotechnology which does not respect national borders, will provide a new impetus to identify the common interests of the technologically advanced industrialised countries and their supply areas and test * Progress Report on the International Undertakings on Plant Genetic Resources, FAO Working Group of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1990.
sites elsewhere in the world. In this light, drawing up a joint code of conduct for transnational companies, which has been impossible so far, would not be such a big step'. Dr L. Emmerij, President of the OECD Development Centre, summarized the discussions as follows: '...the harmonization of rules and regulations is better than anarchy of individual countries because both countries and enterprises prefer to face a situation which is the same across the board than to face different situations all the time'.
References 1 Bunders, J. F. G. (ed.) (1990) Biotechnologyfor Small-scale Fanners in Developing Countries - Analysis and Assessment Procedures, VU University Press
Amsterdam 2 Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. and Stolp, A. (1989) Trends Bioted,nol. 7, S16-$24 3 Walgate; R. (1990) Miracle or Menace? Biotechnoiogy and the Third World, The Panos Institute 4 Ruivenkamp, G. (1989) The lntroduaion of Biotechnology in the AgroIndustrial Dodnaion Chain, Jan van
Arkd Frits K. de Graaf Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Biology, de Boelelaan 1087-1081 H V Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Do you wish to make a contribution to, or comment on any article in
TIBTECH Please contact: the Editor of TIBTECH, Elsevier Trends Joumals, 68 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1LA, UK.
TIBTECHSEPTEMBER1991(VOL9)
forum Glossary. Acronyms DGIS - Directorate General for International Cooperation of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. IDRC- International Development Research Centre. NGOs- Non-GovernmentalOrganizations. OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. SAREC- Swedish Agencyfor ResearchCooperationwith DevelopingCountries.
during the debate focused on (1) how to protect small-scale farmers in developing countries by strengthening their legal position with regard to the genetic resources they have maintained and conserved, and (2) how to develop biotechnological innovations appropriate for small-scale farming systems. Exchange of information among all groups involved in the development and dissemination of biotechnological innovations, the end-users of the technology and groups who represent and/or work with them, was considered crucial by the organizers. The debate was attended by NGOs (see Glossary for acronyms) from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representatives of governments of developing countries, donor organizations (e.g. World Bank, IDRC, SAREC, DGIS, FAO), biotechnologists from both private and public research institutes, students, farmers, farmers' organizations, and representatives of multinational companies. The central discussion themes were: • strategies to implement appropriate and feasible biotechnological research projects and programmes in public research agendas; • strategies for developing the concept of 'farmers' rights' as a legal guarantee for local breeders in developing countries; • codes of conduct for multinational companies.
Appropriate biotechnology for small-scale farmers Earlier experiences with the introduction of technological innovations in developing countries, such as the Green Revolution (the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops [HYVs]), have shown that resource-rich farmers, who are able to purchase the necessary fertilizers, chemicals and irrigation facilities, were able to benefit, but that these types of TIBTECHSEPTEMBER1991 (VOL9)
innovations were often inappropriate for resource-poor, smallscale farmers.
The interactive bottom-up approach The 'Interactive Bottom-up Approach q'2 was presented by Dr J. E. W. Broerse during the debate. This model was developed by the department of Biology and Society, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for assessing the potential of biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries and finding ways of prioritizing support for research projects or programmes for a specific country or region. The basic assumption of this model is that not the technology, but the end-user, should be central in the formulation of priorities for research. The interactive bottom-up approach bridges the gap between scientists and farmers by providing a way to develop farmer-led innovations: the approach implies a long-term commitment (5-10 years), and a high degree of flexibility in both funding and formulation of research priorities. It should be considered as an openended process, permitting choices to be made through the active participation of the target group involved. The approach regards exchange of information between all groups which are involved in the development and application of biotechnological innovations (farmers' organizations and other NGOs, biotechnologists, social scientists, politicians, government officials and donor organizations) as a prerequisite for being able to prioritize research. In his opening speech, the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, Mr Pronk, concluded: 'In my view the approach developed.., fits very well with a bottom-up poverty action policy such as the one I have set out in the policy
document "Een Wereld van Verschil" [A World of Difference] t. They go hand in glove. I know of no better assessment methodology in this field. A recent book review* raised the question whether projects funded by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation are actually set up according to this model. I can confirm that they are. ! intend to test this model under practical conditions'. The discussions during the debate resulted in recommendations for recipient countries, donor organizations, the international private sector, NGOs, farmers and farmers' organizations. The overall conclusion was that the contribution of biotechnological innovations to sustainable rural development requires an international interdisciplinary research organiza t i o n - an approach including the expertise of social scientists, economists, ecologists, agronomists and technologists.
Farmers' rights and patent legislation At present, there are two forms of intellectual property protection which consider plant material as part of their field of activity (i.e. patent legislation and plant breeders' rights). In the patent legislation of most countries, plants and animals are exempt from patent protection, but this exemption is subject to considerable pressure. In several international organizations, proposals have been put forward for making possible the patenting of biotechnological techniques, genetic material and newly created plants and animals. Breeders in the industrialized countries have most to gain from broadening patent legislations. During the debate, the possible consequences of changes in what is patentable and the introduction of farmers' rights as a legal guarantee
*The general policy document of DGIS. *The recent book review Pronk refers to featured in the Dutch newspaper N R C on 28 March 1991, written by thejournalist Henk Donkers. In this article, three books were reviewed1'3'4.
299
forum for local communities were discussed. D r J. Hardon, Director o f the Netherlands Centre for Genetic Resources summarized the discussions as follows: 'There should be a reasonable balance between the interests o f those contributing to crop improvement and the society at large. O n the one hand, it requires private industry to restrain its attitudes towards protecting its interests where it affects food production, notably in developing countries. A good and hopeful start in this respect is the establishment o f the Green Industry Biotechnology Platform (GIBiP), consisting of major private companies involved in biotechnological research where these issues are debated. O n the other hand, it requires public fmanced research and the informal sector to balance and safeguard the interests of resource-poor farmers. There is some irony in the fact that, while these farmers are major custodians of still existing genetic diversity in crops, they benefit least from research employing such d i v e r s i t y . . . ' It was recommended that a farmers' rights proposal should include the maintenance of plant breeders' rights and prevent the extension o f patent legislation to cover the genetic material of plants and animals. Such a legal guarantee should be established by an international organization with the power to apply sanctions. The efforts o f local communities in conserving genetic resources should be recognized by the establishment o f an international genefund s. The United Nations Conference on Environment and SThe international genefund is meant to be a fund source to compensate local communities in the Third World for their efforts in conserving genetic resources. Payment should be obligatory and is based on the degree to which the users of the genetic material (e.g. government institutions and industry) profit from it. A substantial part of the genefund is supposed to be used to support local communities.
Development ( U N C E D ) to be held in 1992 was considered as a major opportunity for taking further steps towards these goals. During this conference, proposals will be submitted for the establishment of an international Fund for Plant Genetic Resources. This could provide substance to the principle of farmers' rights and the principle of genetic resource as a 'Heritage of Mankind' as embodied in the F A O Undertaking*.
Codes of conduct In a number of cases, multinational companies have been involved in the development of biotechnological innovations which are viewed as having had a negative impact on Third World countries. To prevent this situation recurring, regulations concerning relationships with developing countries, in terms of national and international legislation as well as internal and external codes of conduct, are called for. The general aim o f codes of conduct is the acceptance of a voluntary restriction o f the theoretical legal freedom. Internal industrial codes are often a reaction from industry to what they see as negative public perception of a situation or in anticipation o f possible future government legal measures. External codes o f conduct usually originate and are formulated by organizations or pressure groups from outside industry. Pronk concluded: 'Unfortunately, the international negotiations on a code of conduct for trans-national companies, which have been dragging on for years, reached an impasse last year . . . . Perhaps understanding the risks o f unbridled development and the application of biotechnology which does not respect national borders, will provide a new impetus to identify the common interests of the technologically advanced industrialised countries and their supply areas and test * Progress Report on the International Undertakings on Plant Genetic Resources, FAO Working Group of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1990.
sites elsewhere in the world. In this light, drawing up a joint code of conduct for transnational companies, which has been impossible so far, would not be such a big step'. Dr L. Emmerij, President of the OECD Development Centre, summarized the discussions as follows: '...the harmonization of rules and regulations is better than anarchy of individual countries because both countries and enterprises prefer to face a situation which is the same across the board than to face different situations all the time'.
References 1 Bunders, J. F. G. (ed.) (1990) Biotechnologyfor Small-scale Fanners in Developing Countries - Analysis and Assessment Procedures, VU University Press
Amsterdam 2 Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. and Stolp, A. (1989) Trends Bioted,nol. 7, S16-$24 3 Walgate; R. (1990) Miracle or Menace? Biotechnoiogy and the Third World, The Panos Institute 4 Ruivenkamp, G. (1989) The lntroduaion of Biotechnology in the AgroIndustrial Dodnaion Chain, Jan van
Arkd Frits K. de Graaf Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Biology, de Boelelaan 1087-1081 H V Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Do you wish to make a contribution to, or comment on any article in
TIBTECH Please contact: the Editor of TIBTECH, Elsevier Trends Joumals, 68 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 1LA, UK.
TIBTECHSEPTEMBER1991(VOL9)