- Email: [email protected]
Plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries
Plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries David W. Altman International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA The literature on the transfer of plant biotechnology to developing countries still concentrates on the potential of biotechnology and the underpinning philosophies of various programs. Recentestimates of actual field experiments of transgenic plants indicate that only 2% of the global total have taken place in developing countries, mostly in Latin America. However, the largest field trials to date, which exceeded 200 hectares, have been attempted in China. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 1993, 4:177-179 Introduction Over the last several years, advanced plant biotechnology applications have progressed in many industrial countries to the point of precommercialization for selected crops such as tomato, cotton, potato, and cucurbits. Additionally, using tissue culture methods and micropropagation, economically viable applications of biotechnology are utilized routinely in an increasing number of plant species. Because most of the world's agriculture is in developing countries, transfer of plant biotechnology to regions where these technologies have the potential for the greatest impact on food, animal feed, and fiber production has led to heightened speculation and, hence, to an increase in the published literature on this subject. An important consideration when approaching this literature is that virtually all of these papers deal with the potential transfer of technology, rather than operational projects which are the context for many applications within industrial countries. Therefore, reports on actual transfer of technology, which would already have taken place in developing countries, are rare, in contrast to documentation of the results of completed experimentation for applications in industrial countries. A large portion of these publications are from conference proceedings and, as is frequently the case with such papers, rapidly become out of date because of new developments. A further consideration is that biotechnology has elicited a broad range of reactions, from dogmatic opposition to wildly unrealistic enthusiasm; therefore, the political bias of authors should be investigated before the discerning reader can accept much of the documentation as an accurate assessment of particular topics. This review will begin by examining publications from conferences touching on the general subject of plant biotechnology transfer in development assistance, and will then evaluate papers on specific component topics, such as biosafety regulations, proprietary technology, and particular initiatives of development organi-
zations. Most of the material has been published in the last five years. A review of earlier literature on the potential applications of plant biotechnology for developing countries can be found, for instance, in a book chapter authored by Dixon [1]. Two typical examples of large general publications are from a conference sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [2] and from a World Bank study on opportunities for the international development of agricultural biotechnology [3]. Both of these volumes are collections covering many different subjects, with the former being a combination of formatted papers and transcripts of oral presentations, and the latter representing summaries of commissioned analyses by the World Bank and collaborating organizations, such as the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), and the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). While plants are the subject of the majority of the papers in these books, their scope extends to all agriculture.
Proprietary technology The relative roles of public and private sector research are a central point of debate for many authors. Some believe the involvement of the private sector in transferring technology to developing countries will threaten real improvement in rural development [4]. This perception of corporate consciousness is based on the supposed absence of concern for small farmers when priorities are set by corporations aiming for a profitable return from their research investment. An additional assumption is that biotechnology transfer programs will aggravate other policy problems for developing countries, such as commodity substitution.
Abbreviations ISNAR--tnternational Servicefor National Agricultural Research;USAID--United StatesAgency for international Development. © Current Biology Ltd ISSN 0958-1669
177
178
Plantbiotechnology Alternative interpretations have been proposed for private sector involvement. James [5"] cites an example where a gene construction for non-conventional resistance, involving the coat proteins of plant viruses, was donated by Monsanto, a private company, for the benefit of small farmers in Mexico. This perspective emphasizes that private sector investment in plant biotechnology is more than 60% of total research and development expenditure and cannot be ignored ff technology transfer is to be effective.
Regulations and biosafety Because regulatory oversight for recombinant DNA in crop plants has played an important part in the precommercialization phase of biotechnology applications in industrial countries, this issue is also important for analyses leading to transfer to developing countries. However, concrete statistics are scant as there is no formal, central database of these activities. Chasseray and Duesing [6"] have made one of the better efforts to document the total worldwide number of approved field releases of transgenic plants. Data are given for 1991, but the only countries mentioned that could be described as 'developing' are Argentina, Chile, China, and Costa Rica. Using their method of counting multisite trials as a single record, these developing countries accounted for eight of 393 releases, or 2%. The global effort for actual biosafety policy is not easily assessed, but Lesser and Maloney have made a fairly comprehensive assessment which indicates that more than 20 countries have some form of regulation in place (W Lesser and A Maloney, unpublished data).
Agriculture (CAMBIA), the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology (ILTAB), the Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP) project of USAID, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), the Interamerican Institute for Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA), and the World Bank. Cohen [9] has also authored a review that concisely outlines the activities of the International Agricultural Research Centers (1ARC) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Other programs concentrating specifically on biotechnology transfer for crop plants are operated by: first, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the activities of which are frequently highlighted in a newsletter published in The Netherlands, Biotechnology and Development Monitor,, second, ISNAR; and third, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The USAID program began a newsletter, BioLink, in 1992 which contains information on their initiative. The Commission of the European Communities also publishes the European Biotechnology Information Service Newsletter, which reviews programs and other news for plant biotechnology in developing countries. Some private philanthropic initiatives have b e e n of importance for plant biotechnology in developing countries. The Rockefeller Foundation provides about US$7 million annually for rice biotechnology research [10"1. In the first six years of this program, from 1985 to 1990, approximately US$35 million was invested on a global basis. Although this initiative funds basic research with over 90% of the work on rice per se, this investment has a high probability of contributing to actual technology transfer that will be used in field applications in the near future.
ISNAR has recently published a handbook to assist developing countries in implementing biosafety regulations [7]. This document purports to provide a practical guide for policymakers on h o w to prepare national policies and procedures for biosafety regulations, as well as listing sources of information. Unfortunately, the approach is overly simplistic and extremely biased for duplicating industrial countries' models of regulation, which could be unworkable in developing countries. The absence of any input from private companies which must deal with the regulations or of a balanced analysis of options for national guidelines is very striking.
From the preceding discussion, the lack of actual agricultural applications demonstrating realistic transfer of plant biotechnology is obvious. The Monsanto Mexico project is an exception which is noted in the literature [5",11], but there are other examples that are not well documented. For instance, the Chinese have the largest field experiments involving transgenic plants, but little has b e e n published on these trials. A recent short report has made reference to this testing, which covered an area exceeding 200 hectares [12"]. There should be an upward trend in the next few years in the number of cases of field implementation appearing in the literature.
Current initiatives
Conclusion
There are now a handful of specific public programs, which are operational to some degree, for transfer of plant biotechnology to developing countries. A publication, resulting from a recent conference sponsored by the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology [8], will b e available in 1993 with papers on the following programs: the Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International
Although a large number of publications have appeared in the last few years on plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries, only a small number of applications have advanced to the level of field implementation. The literature analyzes the particular philosophies and rationales for plant biotechnology transfer very extensively. However, the perspective is generally from the point of view of industrial countries,
Plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries Altman
and in-depth evaluation from the developing countries themselves is difficult to find. Recent developments are in the expansion of initiatives with a specific objective for increasing opportunities for plant biotechnology transfer b e y o n d the industrial countries. These new initiatives have only recently b e e n even mentioned in publications but they offer the potential to accelerate practical applications. The newly created newsletters will be a vital source of information regarding current initiatives, provided their tendency towards political bias does not overly influence editorial decisions.
This well-written article explains a framework for emphasizing involvement of private corporations a n d public organizations to assist in the transfer of plant biotechnology to developing countries. O n e of the few examples of corporate participation is outlined: coat-protein gene resistance to viruses in potato donated by Monsanto for u s e in Mexico.
6.
CHASSERAY E, DUESING J: Field Trials o f Transgenic Plants: an O v e r v i e w . Agro Food Industry Hi-tech 1992,
3:5-10. This paper lists information from a database containing most field experiments with tmnsgenic plants a n d is a g o o d reference for 1991. The only significant omission a m o n g developing countries is the information on trials in Mexico. Data o n the proportion of different types of genes, the public a n d private institutions that have conducted the trials, and crop species are given. 7.
PERSLEY GJ, GIDDINGS LV, JUMA C: Biosafety, the Safe
Application o f Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Environment. The Hague: International Service for National
References and recommended reading
Agricultural Research; 1992. 8.
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have b e e n highlighted as: of special interest •. of outstanding interest
1.
DIXONRK: Plant Biotechnology Networking i n Developing C o u n t r i e s . In Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts a n d Policy Implications, Contributions in PoBlical Science no. 260. Edited by Webber DJ. Westport, Connecticut: G r e e n w o o d Press; 1990:8-98.
2.
COHENJI (ED): Strengthening Collaboration in Biotechnol-
ogy: International Agricultural Research a n d the Private Sector. Washington DC: Agency for International Develop-
Bioteclmology Research and D e v e l o p m e n t Trends: Scie n c e Policy for Development. A n n N Y Acad Sci 1993, in press. 9.
PERSLEYGJ (ED): Agricultural Btotechnology: Opportunities f o r International Development. Wallingford, England: CAB International; 1990.
4.
BROERSEJEW, BLINDERSJFG, BYLOO JD, STOLP A: A Model for Comparing and Evaluating Biotechnological I n n o v a t i o n s for Small-Scale Farmers i n D e v e l o p i n g Countries, In Progress in Plant Cellular and Molecular Biology. Edited by Nijkamp HJJ, van der Plas LItW, v a n Aartrijk J. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990:801-811.
5.
Transfer o f Proprietary A g r i c u l t u r a l B i o t e c h n o l o g y Applications from the I n d u s t r i a l C o u n t r i e s to the Developing Ones: the International B i o t e c h n o l o g y Collaboration P r o g r a n l . In Rtvtsta di Agricoltura Subtropicale e Tropicale. Edited by Brandolini
COHENJI: Biotechnology Research for the Developing World. Trends Btotechnol 1989, 7:295-303.
HERDT RW: Perspectives o n Agricultural Biotechnolo g y Research for Small C o u n t r i e s . J Agric Econ 1991, 42:298-308. The Rockefeller Foundation program for rice biotechnology is explained in detail, including s o m e insights o n the reasoning of a foundation donor to develop s u c h an initiative. 10.
11.
GERSHOND: P r o g r ' a m m e A i d s D e v e l o p i n g World. Nature 1992, 356:735.
12.
CHEN Z-L: Field Releases o f Recombinant Bacteria and Transgenie PLants i n C h i n a . In The Biosafety Results o f Field Tests o f Genetically Modified Plants a n d Microorganisms, 2 n d International Symposium. Edited by Casper R,
ment; 1989. 3.
UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION:
L a n d s m a n n J. Braunschweig, Germany: Biologische Bundesanstalt fgr Land- u n d Forstwirtschaft; 1992:53. The author chose to publish only a brief report with few details. The transgenic crops that occupied extensive acreage (i.e. more than 200 hectares) were tobacco a n d tomato with coat protein genes, although there is mention of plants with g e n e s encoding a toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis.
JAMES C: The
A. Florence: Istituto Agronomico Per L'Oltremare; 1991:5-24.
DW Altman, President/Executive Director of ISAAA, ISAAA AmeriCenter, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, 260 Emerson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-1902, USA.
179
zations. Most of the material has been published in the last five years. A review of earlier literature on the potential applications of plant biotechnology for developing countries can be found, for instance, in a book chapter authored by Dixon [1]. Two typical examples of large general publications are from a conference sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [2] and from a World Bank study on opportunities for the international development of agricultural biotechnology [3]. Both of these volumes are collections covering many different subjects, with the former being a combination of formatted papers and transcripts of oral presentations, and the latter representing summaries of commissioned analyses by the World Bank and collaborating organizations, such as the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), and the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB). While plants are the subject of the majority of the papers in these books, their scope extends to all agriculture.
Proprietary technology The relative roles of public and private sector research are a central point of debate for many authors. Some believe the involvement of the private sector in transferring technology to developing countries will threaten real improvement in rural development [4]. This perception of corporate consciousness is based on the supposed absence of concern for small farmers when priorities are set by corporations aiming for a profitable return from their research investment. An additional assumption is that biotechnology transfer programs will aggravate other policy problems for developing countries, such as commodity substitution.
Abbreviations ISNAR--tnternational Servicefor National Agricultural Research;USAID--United StatesAgency for international Development. © Current Biology Ltd ISSN 0958-1669
177
178
Plantbiotechnology Alternative interpretations have been proposed for private sector involvement. James [5"] cites an example where a gene construction for non-conventional resistance, involving the coat proteins of plant viruses, was donated by Monsanto, a private company, for the benefit of small farmers in Mexico. This perspective emphasizes that private sector investment in plant biotechnology is more than 60% of total research and development expenditure and cannot be ignored ff technology transfer is to be effective.
Regulations and biosafety Because regulatory oversight for recombinant DNA in crop plants has played an important part in the precommercialization phase of biotechnology applications in industrial countries, this issue is also important for analyses leading to transfer to developing countries. However, concrete statistics are scant as there is no formal, central database of these activities. Chasseray and Duesing [6"] have made one of the better efforts to document the total worldwide number of approved field releases of transgenic plants. Data are given for 1991, but the only countries mentioned that could be described as 'developing' are Argentina, Chile, China, and Costa Rica. Using their method of counting multisite trials as a single record, these developing countries accounted for eight of 393 releases, or 2%. The global effort for actual biosafety policy is not easily assessed, but Lesser and Maloney have made a fairly comprehensive assessment which indicates that more than 20 countries have some form of regulation in place (W Lesser and A Maloney, unpublished data).
Agriculture (CAMBIA), the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology (ILTAB), the Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP) project of USAID, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), the Interamerican Institute for Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA), and the World Bank. Cohen [9] has also authored a review that concisely outlines the activities of the International Agricultural Research Centers (1ARC) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Other programs concentrating specifically on biotechnology transfer for crop plants are operated by: first, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the activities of which are frequently highlighted in a newsletter published in The Netherlands, Biotechnology and Development Monitor,, second, ISNAR; and third, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The USAID program began a newsletter, BioLink, in 1992 which contains information on their initiative. The Commission of the European Communities also publishes the European Biotechnology Information Service Newsletter, which reviews programs and other news for plant biotechnology in developing countries. Some private philanthropic initiatives have b e e n of importance for plant biotechnology in developing countries. The Rockefeller Foundation provides about US$7 million annually for rice biotechnology research [10"1. In the first six years of this program, from 1985 to 1990, approximately US$35 million was invested on a global basis. Although this initiative funds basic research with over 90% of the work on rice per se, this investment has a high probability of contributing to actual technology transfer that will be used in field applications in the near future.
ISNAR has recently published a handbook to assist developing countries in implementing biosafety regulations [7]. This document purports to provide a practical guide for policymakers on h o w to prepare national policies and procedures for biosafety regulations, as well as listing sources of information. Unfortunately, the approach is overly simplistic and extremely biased for duplicating industrial countries' models of regulation, which could be unworkable in developing countries. The absence of any input from private companies which must deal with the regulations or of a balanced analysis of options for national guidelines is very striking.
From the preceding discussion, the lack of actual agricultural applications demonstrating realistic transfer of plant biotechnology is obvious. The Monsanto Mexico project is an exception which is noted in the literature [5",11], but there are other examples that are not well documented. For instance, the Chinese have the largest field experiments involving transgenic plants, but little has b e e n published on these trials. A recent short report has made reference to this testing, which covered an area exceeding 200 hectares [12"]. There should be an upward trend in the next few years in the number of cases of field implementation appearing in the literature.
Current initiatives
Conclusion
There are now a handful of specific public programs, which are operational to some degree, for transfer of plant biotechnology to developing countries. A publication, resulting from a recent conference sponsored by the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology [8], will b e available in 1993 with papers on the following programs: the Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International
Although a large number of publications have appeared in the last few years on plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries, only a small number of applications have advanced to the level of field implementation. The literature analyzes the particular philosophies and rationales for plant biotechnology transfer very extensively. However, the perspective is generally from the point of view of industrial countries,
Plant biotechnology transfer to developing countries Altman
and in-depth evaluation from the developing countries themselves is difficult to find. Recent developments are in the expansion of initiatives with a specific objective for increasing opportunities for plant biotechnology transfer b e y o n d the industrial countries. These new initiatives have only recently b e e n even mentioned in publications but they offer the potential to accelerate practical applications. The newly created newsletters will be a vital source of information regarding current initiatives, provided their tendency towards political bias does not overly influence editorial decisions.
This well-written article explains a framework for emphasizing involvement of private corporations a n d public organizations to assist in the transfer of plant biotechnology to developing countries. O n e of the few examples of corporate participation is outlined: coat-protein gene resistance to viruses in potato donated by Monsanto for u s e in Mexico.
6.
CHASSERAY E, DUESING J: Field Trials o f Transgenic Plants: an O v e r v i e w . Agro Food Industry Hi-tech 1992,
3:5-10. This paper lists information from a database containing most field experiments with tmnsgenic plants a n d is a g o o d reference for 1991. The only significant omission a m o n g developing countries is the information on trials in Mexico. Data o n the proportion of different types of genes, the public a n d private institutions that have conducted the trials, and crop species are given. 7.
PERSLEY GJ, GIDDINGS LV, JUMA C: Biosafety, the Safe
Application o f Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Environment. The Hague: International Service for National
References and recommended reading
Agricultural Research; 1992. 8.
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have b e e n highlighted as: of special interest •. of outstanding interest
1.
DIXONRK: Plant Biotechnology Networking i n Developing C o u n t r i e s . In Biotechnology: Assessing Social Impacts a n d Policy Implications, Contributions in PoBlical Science no. 260. Edited by Webber DJ. Westport, Connecticut: G r e e n w o o d Press; 1990:8-98.
2.
COHENJI (ED): Strengthening Collaboration in Biotechnol-
ogy: International Agricultural Research a n d the Private Sector. Washington DC: Agency for International Develop-
Bioteclmology Research and D e v e l o p m e n t Trends: Scie n c e Policy for Development. A n n N Y Acad Sci 1993, in press. 9.
PERSLEYGJ (ED): Agricultural Btotechnology: Opportunities f o r International Development. Wallingford, England: CAB International; 1990.
4.
BROERSEJEW, BLINDERSJFG, BYLOO JD, STOLP A: A Model for Comparing and Evaluating Biotechnological I n n o v a t i o n s for Small-Scale Farmers i n D e v e l o p i n g Countries, In Progress in Plant Cellular and Molecular Biology. Edited by Nijkamp HJJ, van der Plas LItW, v a n Aartrijk J. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990:801-811.
5.
Transfer o f Proprietary A g r i c u l t u r a l B i o t e c h n o l o g y Applications from the I n d u s t r i a l C o u n t r i e s to the Developing Ones: the International B i o t e c h n o l o g y Collaboration P r o g r a n l . In Rtvtsta di Agricoltura Subtropicale e Tropicale. Edited by Brandolini
COHENJI: Biotechnology Research for the Developing World. Trends Btotechnol 1989, 7:295-303.
HERDT RW: Perspectives o n Agricultural Biotechnolo g y Research for Small C o u n t r i e s . J Agric Econ 1991, 42:298-308. The Rockefeller Foundation program for rice biotechnology is explained in detail, including s o m e insights o n the reasoning of a foundation donor to develop s u c h an initiative. 10.
11.
GERSHOND: P r o g r ' a m m e A i d s D e v e l o p i n g World. Nature 1992, 356:735.
12.
CHEN Z-L: Field Releases o f Recombinant Bacteria and Transgenie PLants i n C h i n a . In The Biosafety Results o f Field Tests o f Genetically Modified Plants a n d Microorganisms, 2 n d International Symposium. Edited by Casper R,
ment; 1989. 3.
UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION:
L a n d s m a n n J. Braunschweig, Germany: Biologische Bundesanstalt fgr Land- u n d Forstwirtschaft; 1992:53. The author chose to publish only a brief report with few details. The transgenic crops that occupied extensive acreage (i.e. more than 200 hectares) were tobacco a n d tomato with coat protein genes, although there is mention of plants with g e n e s encoding a toxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis.
JAMES C: The
A. Florence: Istituto Agronomico Per L'Oltremare; 1991:5-24.
DW Altman, President/Executive Director of ISAAA, ISAAA AmeriCenter, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, 260 Emerson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-1902, USA.
179